OF  PRINCETON 


THFOI QGICAI  SEMINARY. 


NOTES 


ON 


SCRIPTURE. 


Br 


JOEL     JONES,   LL.D. 


r 


LIBRARY  OF  PRINCETON 


NOV  1  •  2007 


THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


PHILADELPHIA: 
WILLIAM    S.  &  ALFRED    MARTIEN, 

No.  606  Chestnut  Street. 
1861. 


Entered,   according  to  act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1860,  by 

WILLIAM  S.  &  ALFRED  MARTIEN, 

In  the  Office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Eastern 
District  of  Pennsylvania. 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 


Table  of  the  genealogy  of  Jesus.  Omission  of  names  in  the  table  of  pedigree. 
Addition  of  title  of  King  to  David,  and  omission  of  the  title  to  Solomon,  sig- 
nificant. Omission  of  Matthew  to  make  mention  of  the  return  of  the  tribes 
from  captivity.  Necessary  change  of  phraseology — Emmanuel.  Christ  as 
truly  the  son  of  Joseph  as  of  David  or  Abraham.  Manner  and  occasion  of  the 
revelation  made  to  Joseph.  Testimony  of  Herod.  Form  of  government  ap- 
pointed for  the  tribes  of  Israel  and  for  the  land  God  gave  them.  Natural 
means  of  escape  or  protection,  preferred  to  miraculous,  in  the  passing  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  from  infancy  to  manhood.  The  massacre  of  the  children  of  Beth- 
lehem by  Herod,  a  renewed  cause  for  the  lamentation  of  the  mother  of  the 
ten  tribes  retrosjjectively  spoken  of  by  Jeremiah  xxxi.  15.  Pages  33 — 51 

CHAPTER  11. 

John's  character  and  ministry,  why  called  the  Baptist.  Difference  between  the 
opinions  of  the  early  Christian  writers  and  those  of  the  last  two  centuries  on 
the  prophecy  Mai.  iv.  5.  John  not  Elias  in  person — John  equal  to  Elijah — 
The  Elijah  of  the  legal  economy — John  the  subject  of  prophecy  as  well  as 
Elijah,  but  not  of  the  same  prophecies — Both  to  be  sent  to  a  people  dwelling 
together  in  the  land  of  Israel.  Distinction  between  the  miraculous  passage 
through  the  Eed  Sea  by  Moses  and  the  miraculous  passage  through  the  Jor- 
dan by  Joshua.  Significancy  of  the  place  where  John  baptized.  John's 
object — his  baptism  ineffectual  to  restore  national  repentance.  Momentous 
events  to  occur  between  John's  baptism  with  water  and  the  baptism  of  the 
nation  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire — John's  baptism  emblematical. 
The  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit — our  Lord's  promise  of  baptism  to  his  Apos- 
tles at  his  last  interview  does  not  include  a  baptism  with  fire.  Baptism  by 
fire.  Baptism  of  Christ.  The  purpose  of  John's  ministry  declared  by  the 
angel.  Intimate  connection  between  the  national  salvation  of  Israel  and  the 
purpose  of  redemption.  John  preaches  repentance — his  eminence  above 
others — Wherein  his  preaching  differed  from  the  Apostles — Important  pas- 
sages touching  the  character  and  offices  of  John.  The  question  of  the  Phari- 
sees respecting  John's  office  and  authority.  The  question  of  the  Priests 
and  Levites  respecting  his  baptism — His  answer.  John  performed  no  mira- 
cles— Object  of  Christ's  miracles.  John's  imprisonment — Suggestions  as  to 
the  purpose  for  which  John's  imprisonment  was  so  long  continued.  Com- 
mencement of  Christ's  ministry.  Importance  of  considering  Christ's  personal 
ministry  to  the  Jews  under  three  distinct  heads.  Classification  of  miracles. 
Christ's  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  The  burden  of  the  prophets.  Christ's  ful- 
filling the  law — His  restoration  of  all  things.  Christ's  prohibition  of  oaths — 
Judicial  oaths.  The  Lord's  prayer.  Miracles  as  a  proof  of  the  presence  of 
the  kingdom — Miracles  for  the  purpose  of  proving  the  power  of  faith  in  the 
scheme  of  redem]3tion — Healing  the  leper — The  office  of  faith  in  miracles — 
Faith.  Healing  the  Centurion's  servant.  Miracles  in  answer  to  faith — Diver- 
sities of  the  operations  of  faith — Typical  import  of  these  bodily  cures.  Christ's 
bearing  our  infirmities — Matthew's  numerous  quotations  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Scriptures.    Christ's  title — The  Son  of  Man.    Miracles  as  the  Son  of 


12  CONTEXTS. 

Man — Title  as  'Son  of  Man*  more  comprehensive  than  his  title  of  Messiah — 
evidence  of  hi#  claim  to  each  distinct  and  ditlerent.  and  exhibited  to  ditVerent 
witnesses  and  for  ditlerent  pur jMses — Pivmise  of  power  to  the  disciples. 
Mysteries  of  Jestis'  nature.  Jesus"  pi^wer  over  the  physical  world.  The 
miracle  of  casting  out  demons  au  exercise  of  the  Lord's  jx^wer  as  Son  of 
Man  over  the  spiritual  world — A  reason  for  assigning  miracles  of  this  cha- 
racter to  our  Lt^rd's  Adamic  otVice — Combination  of  miracles,  for  what  pur- 
pose.   Jesus'  ix)wer  over  evil  spirits.  ....  Pages  51 — 92 

CHAPTER  III. 

Sins  forgiven  on  account  of  the  faith  of  synipathiging  friends.  EfTeet  of  the 
sublimity  of  our  Lord's  character  and  dejH>rtment. "  The  prerogative  which 
the  Saviour  claims  as  "  Sou  of  Man"  annexed  to  his  human,  not  his  Divine 
nature.  The  call  of  Matthew — The  Saviour's  call  always  elieotive.  Miracles 
as  examples  of  the  jx^wer  of  faith.  The  Gosj^el  of  Matthew  not  intended  as  a 
biography  of  our  Loni,  or  as  a  connected  record  of  his  public  ministry.  The 
coiupassion  of  Jesus.  The  harvest  tield — The  harvest — The  time'  of  the 
harvest — The  Lord  of  the  harvest.  The  calling  of  the  Apostles — the  jK>wer 
conferral  on  them  limited  to  two  kinds  of  miracles,  annexed  to  their  office  as 

1>reachers  of  the  kingdom.  The  commission  of  the  Apostles  previous  to  our 
..ord's  resurrection.  The  Apostles  not  authorized  expounders  of  the  law. 
The  Saviour's  special  care  over  the  Apostles  extending  to  the  smallest  and 
most  necessary  things.  The  meaning  and  intent  of  the  precept  ••  Let  your 
jvace,"  ,ic.  Our  Lorvl's  ministry  to  the  Jews  a  national  visitation.  Twelve 
Aj^K>stles  sent  to  the  cities  of  Israel.  Cities  held  responsible  as  communities. 
Distinction  between  the  gospel  as  preached  to  the  Jews  under  the  economy  of 
law,  and  the  gospel  of  grace  preached  to  all  nations.  One  commission,  two 
missions  under  it.  given  to  the  AjK>stles.  Keference  to  the  second  mission. 
The  Ai.K>stles'  isinorance  of  the  extent  to  which  their  service  would  ultimately 
be  required,  to  be  removed  by  the  teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  First  promise 
(by  implication)  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Reference  to  Christ's  mission  to  that 
people,  as  Messiah,  ended,  and  his  mission  as  '•  Son  of  Man,"  or  Saviour  of 
all  who  would  come  unto  him,  commenced.  Sending  forth  of  the  twelve — 
The  subject  of  their  teaching.  Chief  intent  of  John's  Inquiry  of  Jesus,  by  his 
disciples, '•  Art  thou  he  that  should  ci^me?"  The  prophecy  respecting  Elijah 
not  applicable  to  John  the  Baptist.  Exposition,  differing  from  commentators, 
who  consider  the  declaration  of  the  Saviour,  "'The  kingdom  of  heaven  suffer- 
eth  violence,"  Ac  a  rule  of  Christian  life.  The  power  and  authoritv  of  Jesus 
as  "Son  of  Man"  taught  by  the  Psalmist,  also  by  Paul.  Necessity  of  distin- 
guishing Wtween  the  person,  offices,  or  authority  of  Jesus,  in  order  to  obtain 
a  clear  understanding  of  his  discourses — As  "S*.m  of  Man,"  he  claims  absolute 
authority  over  the  Sabbath.  The  jx>wer  of  Christ's  will  as  Lord  of  the  Sab- 
bath exemplilied.  First  conspiracy  against  the  life  of  Jesus  Christ's  observ- 
ance of  the  rules  of  human  prudence^ — Characteristic  difterence  between  the 
records  of  Matthew  and  Mark.  The  public  demeanour  of  Jesus  in  his  subject 
condition  and  servant  form.  The  eU'ect  of  our  Lord's  miracles  upon  those  who 
witnesses!  them.  Earthly  analogies  used  by  our  Saviour  in  reply  to  the 
thoughts  of  the  Pharisees.  The  absurdity  of  their  calumny  exposed.  The 
Pharisees  thn.iwn  into  a  dilemma.  The  kingdom  of  Gotl  (proved  Dy  his  pre- 
sence) in  the  midst  of  that  jx^pleas  a  nation— Satan's  kingdom  real'as  proved 
by  the  aivusation  of  the  Pharisees  and  the  response  oT  the  Saviour.  An 
allegory  n^preseuting  the  jviwer  of  the  usurper  and  the  Lordship  of  Jesus. 
Contrast  Unween  sins  against  the  Holy  Spirit  and  sins  against  the  Son  of  Man. 
A  call  ujx^u  his  calumniators  for  cv'insistency.  Scribes  and  Pharisees  demand 
no  further  signs — The  evidence  already  furuishe^i  sulKcient  for  the  trial  of  the 
nation — Evidentvs  of  his  Divine  character  given  in  private  to  his  disciples, 
which  were  withheld  fn>m  the  nation  at  large.  A  prophetic  allegorv.  especially 
applicable  to  the  Jews,  shadowing  forth  their  future  character  and  moral  con- 
dition. A  contrast  tacitly  drawn  by  our  Saviour,  between  mankind  as  fallen, 
and  man  as  re^iivmevl.  Division  of  parables  into  public  and  private  instruc- 
tion— Im{xirtance  of  the  distinction  between  our  Loni's  public  functions  as  a 
minister  of  the  circumcision,  and  his  private  functions  as  a  teacher  of  disciples. 
Christ's  private  instructions  to  his  disciples  contain  the  germ  of  all  the  great 
doctrines  of  the  Epistles.    Instruction  on  the  parable  of"  the  sower.    An  alle- 


CONTENTS.  13 

gorieal  representation  of  the  state  of  the  world  between  the  first  and  second 
advent  of  the  Son  of  Man.  The  sublime  conception  enveloped  in  the  parable 
of  the  Uires  of  the  field,  made  apparent  by  the  Saviours  explanation — The 
central  idea  of  the  parable.  Private  instruction  to  the  Aix>stles  (specially 
intended)  showing  the  result  of  their  laKnirs.  A  similitude  of  the  teachei^ 
the  Lord  designee!  to  raise  up  and  instruct  in  the  nivsteries  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.    Distinction  between  the  Saviour's  miracles.  .        Pases  ^2 — 132 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Herod  the  Tetrarch's  testimonv  to  the  truth  and  reality  of  the  miraculous  works 
of  Jesus — The  conclusion  of  the  argumentative  part  of  the  (josjvI  of  Matthew. 
Imprisonment  of  John  the  event  u}xin  which  our  Lords  public  ministry 
was  suspended.  John's  influence.  The  first  seal  put  upon  the  nation's  doom. 
Time  ot  John's  death — Term  of  his  ministry — The  connection  between  the 
personal  ministry  of  John  and  the  personal  ministry  of  Jesus — Change  in  our 
Lord's  public  and  private  discourses  and  miracles,  consequent  on  the  death  of 
John.  The  Saviour's  design  to  make  a  new  revelation  of  his  character  to  the 
disciples  and  the  multitude.  The  first  miracle  performed  after  the  death  of 
John  the  Riptist — This  miracle  an  exercise  of  his  Adamic  power  as  Son  of 
Man — Our  Lord's  argument  deduced  fron  this  miracle.  Another  exercise  of 
our  Lx>rd's  Adamic  ^x>wer  belonging  to  his  category  of  private  instruction — 
The  natural  side  ot  our  Loral's  character  really  the  miraculous  side — The 
miraculous  side,  but  the  natural  outward  actings  of  his  glorious  humanitv. 
Peters  recognition  of  his  Lord.  The  jx)wer  of  peVfect  faith.  Perfect  faith  in 
Jesus,  a  power  by  divine  constitution,  superior  to  physical  laws — One  of  the 
purposes  of  redemption,  a  construction  of  a  new  orderof  manhood  bv  a  gene- 
alogy derived  from  the  second  Adam.  Two  other  miracles  of  po'wer%ver 
nature  silently  wrought.  'Worship  olfered  to  our  Lord.  The  Divine  purpose 
as  to  the  ultimate  condition  of  this  world.  An  illustration  of  the  [>ower  of 
faith  disconnected  with  the  public  purposes  of  Christ's  ministrv.  Object  of 
our  Lord  in  the  performance  of  the  miracles  near  the  sea  of  Galilee,  The  trial 
of  the  nation  virtually  close<.l— Our  Lord's  ministrv  personal.  The  dulness  of 
the  disciples— The  import  of  the  miracle  of  the  loaves.  The  mvsterv  of  John 
the  Baptist's  person — The  mystery  of  our  Lord's  person.  Peter's  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  incarnation  of  God  the  Son  ia  Christ.  The  first  disclosure  of  the 
mystery  of  the  Lords  person  by  the  Father  to  one  of  his  disciples.  The 
foundation  of  the  Church.  Mistakes  and  corrections.  Our  Lord's  injunction 
to  secresy  respecting  his  title  of  Christ — His  names,  Jesus  and  Christ.  Our 
Lords  method  in  the  instruction  of  his  disciples.  Another  example  of  Peter's 
rashness — our  Lord's  rebuke.  Peter's  mistake  and  ignorance  of  all  the  mys- 
teries of  redemption,  except  the  incarnation.  The  value  of  the  soul.  Christ's 
title,  the  Si^n  of  Man.  The  Transfiguration.  The  instruction  conveved  bv 
the  Transfiguration  intended  for  the  Church.       .        .        .        Pages  133 — ir'a 

CHAPTER  V. 

The  Coming  of  Elias.  Casting  out  demons.  The  apostle's  want  of  faith  for 
miracles.  The  faith  for  working  miracles.  Jesus  as  Son  of  Man  and  as  Christ. 
Jesus  as  Son  of  Man  and  as  Messiah.  Christ's  Kingdom  as  Messiah.  Christ's 
paying  tribute.  The  apostles'  question.  'Who  shairbe  greatest  in  the  kingdom 
of  heaven?— the  reply  of  our  Lord.  Little  children  saved.  The  Son  of^Man 
come  to  save  the  lost.  Contending  brethren  to  be  reconciled.  Sense  of  the 
word -church."  Binding  and  loosing.  The  discipline  of  the  Church.  There- 
generation.  Personal  reign  of  Christ,  The  new  heavens  and  new  earth.  The 
apostles  to  sit  on  thrones.  All  believers  to  receive  rewards.  Christ  foretells 
his  crucifixion Pages  17(>— 227 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Driniing  of  Christ's  cup.  The  apostles  not  to  be  ambitious.  The  law  of  the 
kingdom.  Christ  came  to  serve.  Melchizedec  the  Son  of  Man.  Christ's 
entry  into  Jerusalem.     Christ's  lamentation  over  Jerusalem.     Christ's  expul- 


14  CONTENTS. 

sion  of  the  money-changers.  The  homage  of  the  children.  The  withering  of 
the  barren  fig-tree.  Christ  is  questioned  by  the  priests.  Christ's  response. 
Christ's  further  response.  The  nation  reject  him.  The  parable  of  the  two 
sons.     The  {^arable  of  the  vineyard.     The  parable  of  the  marriage. 

Pages  227—274 

CHAPTER  VII. 

The  plot  against  Christ  in  regard  to  tribute.  Christ's  reply  in  respect  to  tribute. 
The  Sadducees  deny  the  resurrection.  Christ's  answer  respecting  the  resur- 
rection. Resurrection  promised  in  the  ancient  covenants.  The  resurrection 
promised  to  the  patriarchs.  Christ's  answer  respecting  the  commandments. 
Christ's  question  respecting  his  title  as  Lord.  He  silences  those  who  questioned 
hira.  The  intimate  connection  of  the  several  parts  of  the  evangelical  record. 
The  Jews  to  hear  the  teachers  of  the  law.  Why  the  teachers  of  the  law  were 
to  be  heard.  Character  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees.  The  ambitious  to  be 
humbled,  the  lowly  to  be  exalted Pages  274 — 300 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

Our  Lord's  purpose  in  his  address  to  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees.  Our  Lord's 
purpose  in  prolonging  the  authority  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  as  teachers. 
Christ  a  sign  to  the  Jews.  The  woe  to  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees.  A  pre- 
diction of  the  issue  of  the  trial  of  the  nation  under  the  dispensation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  The  Scribes  and  Pharisees  considered  as  representatives  of  the 
nation  as  well  as  individuals.  The  ground  or  cause  of  the  nation's  guilt  for 
crimes  committed  from  the  beginning  of  the  world.  The  apostrophe  to  Jeru- 
salem. Jerusalem  and  Judea  to  be  desolated.  The  event  upon  which  the 
return  of  the  Divine  favour  is  made. to  depend.  Destruction  of  the  temple 
foretold.  Question  of  the  disciples  about  the  temple.  Question  of  the  disciples 
respecting  our  Lord's  coming.  The  meaning  of  the  end  of  the  cueev  or  age.  Im- 
perfection of  the  disciples'  knowledge — ignorance  and  misconception  of  the 
Divine  purposes.  False  Christs  to  arise — a  warning  to  the  Jews.  The  true  sign 
of  the  end.  Jerusalem's  respite,  denoted  by  the  second  mission  of  the  servants 
in  the  parable  of  the  marriage.  Jerusalem's  desolation.  The  distress  of  the 
nations.  The  advent  of  the  Son  of  Man.  The  judgment  of  the  nations. 
Christ's  kingdom.  The  Revelation  of  St.  John  a  symbolical  explanation  of 
the  prophecy,  or  principal  parts  of  it,  contained  in  the  29th  30th  and  31st 
verses  of  Matt  xxv.    The  prophecy  relates  to  this  world.     .    Pages  300 — 329 

CHAPTER  IX. 

Crucifixion.  First  step  in  the  proceeding  against  our  Lord.  Evasive  answer 
of  the  Jews.  Jews'  acknowledgment  that  they  were  a  subject  people.  Pilate's 
cognizance  of  the  case  necessary  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  Saviour's  prediction 
of  the  manner  of  his  death — Charges  against  Jesus — Pilate's  mind  unaflected 
by  them.  Colloquy  between  Christ  and  Pilate.  Christ  not  born  to  be  a  king, 
but  a  king  before  he  was  born.  Pilate's  public  acquittal  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 
Reiterated  charges,  with  additional  circumstances,  suggest  to  Pilate  the 
dismissal  of  the  case  to  Herod.  Jesus'  appearance  before  Herod.  Herod's 
questions — Christ's  silence.  Herod  declines  jurisdiction.  The  union  of 
Pilate  and  Herod  with  the  people  whom  they  represented,  a  fulfilment  of 
the  second  Psalm Pages  330—354 

CHAPTER  X. 

Pilate  resumes  the  trial  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Obliquity  of  Pilate's  moral  sense. 
Pilate's  expedients  to  satisfy  our  Lord's  accusers.  The  interruption  of  Pilate 
by  the  message  of  his  wife.  The  proposal  of  Pilate  considered  as  an  inti- 
mation of  wliat  passed  in  the  secret  councils  of  the  Father,  when  our  fallen 
race  was  set  in  comparison  with  his  Son.  The  choice  of  Barabbas  deter- 
mined- relations  existing  between  Adam  and  Barabbas  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  Lord  Christ  on  the  other.  By  the  course  of  Pilate's  proceedings, 
and  the  form  of  his  judgment,  the  Jews  demand  the  crucifixion  of  their 


CONTENTS.  15 

King  and  Messiah.  The  way  to  the  mystery  of  the  cross  prepared  by  the 
imprudence  of  Pilate,  and  the  crime  of  the  priests  and  people.  Pilate's 
attempt  to  conciliate  the  passions  of  envious  wicked  men  with  his  duty. 
The  voluntary  wickedness  of  Pilate,  and  of  that  generation  of  the  Jews, 
was  the  instrument  of  Christ's  sufferings  at  that  time.  Pilate's  solemn 
acquittal  of  Jesus — his  criminal  inconsistency.  The  imprecation  of  the  Jews. 
Pilate's  efforts  to  reconcile  the  demands  of  justice  and  his  own  conscience 
with  his  fears.  Satan  the  instigator  of  the  bodily  sufferings  of  our  Lord — 
An  exhibition  of  the  love  of  God,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  severity  of  divine 
justice.  The  crime  of  the  Gentiles.  Second  mockery  of  the  royalty  of  Jesus. 
Jesus  crowned  with  the  emblem  or  symbol  of  the  curse.  Fulfilment  of 
Isaiah  1.  6.  Pilate's  further  attestation  to  Jesus'  innocence.  Pilate's  presen- 
tation to  the  people  of  the  true  Messiah  they  had  so  long  expected.  The 
priests  fear  the  effect  of  the  appearance  of  Jesus  on  the  people.  Every 
pretext  to  future  calumnies  removed  by  Pilate's  reiteration  of  the  innocence 
of  Jesus.  The  Jews  endeavour  to  remove  the  scruples  of  Pilate  by  a  new 
accusation — The  grounds  of  the  accusation  examined — The  foundation  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  firmly  laid  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  effect  of  this 
new  accusation  on  Pilate.  Pilate's  inquiry  into  the  origin  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 
Jesus'  silence.  Pilate's  confession  removes  all  excuse  for  his  conduct.  Jesus 
instructs  Pilate  upon  the  point  of  his  (Pilate's)  authority,  inasmuch  as  he 
claimed  a  power  independent  of  the  providential  government  of  God.  Satan 
the  chief  actor  in  this  great  conflict.  The  death  of  the  Lord  on  the  cross  by 
means  of  Judas,  Jews  and  Gentiles,  foretold  by  the  words,  "Thou  shalt  bruise 
his  heel."  Pilate  given  over  to  the  invisible  power  of  Satan.  Jews'  incon- 
sistency. Formal  presentation  of  their  King  to  the  Jews.  Their  renunciation 
of  him,  and  all  the  promises  made  to  Abraham  and  David.  God's  judgments 
upon  them.  The  Jews  living  witnesses  of  the  divine  mission  of  our  Lord. 
End  of  the  proceeding  before  Pilate — fulfilment  of  Isaiah  liii.  8,  Jews  and 
Gentiles  concur  in  the  accomplishment  of  the  mystery  of  redemption.  Judas' 
repentance  not  genuine — his  destruction  a  direct  act  of  Satan's  power. 
Irregular  workings  of  conscience  in  depraved  men.  Perpetuation  of  Judas' 
and  the  priests'  crime.  Discrepancy  accounted  for.  Leading  the  Saviour  out 
of  the  city  more  than  a  compliance  with  Roman  or  Jewish  customs.  Christ 
bearing  his  cross.  An  allegorical  intimation  of  the  future  call  of  the  Gentiles, 
according  to  some  of  the  early  Christian  writers.  Mutability  of  popular 
feeling.  Jesus'  warning  to  those  who  bewailed  him.  National  ruin  of  the 
Jews  and  its  continuance.  Similarity  between  the  language  of  our  Saviour 
and  that  of  Hosea,  when  predicting  the  fall  of  Samaria,  and  also  with  that 
of  John,  when  opening  the  sixth  vial.  The  hopelessness  of  the  escape  of  the 
heir  of  the  curse,  except  in  the  way  of  God's  own  appointment. 

Pages  354—403. 

CHAPTER  XL 

Fulfilment  of  Isaiah  liii.  12.  Tradition  prevailing  extensively  in  the  early 
Christian  Church.  Different  statements  of  the  Evangelist  reconciled. 
Divine  simplicity  of  the  statement  of  the  Evangelists.  An  additional  proof 
of  Christ's  divine  mission.  Christ's  cross  converted  into  a  tribunal.  The 
Saviour's  prayer.  Sins  against  the  Son  of  Man.  Sin  against  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Discrepancy  (not  affecting  the  substance  of  the  writing)  accounted 
for.  Testimony  of  the  Judge  and  Governor  of  the  Jews  as  the  murderer  of 
their  own  Messiah.  Pilate's  peremptory  refusal  to  alter  the  superscription. 
Christ's  self-humiliation.  The  seamless  coat  typical  of  that  perfected  body  of 
believers  which  our  blessed  Lord  will  at  his  coming  gather  to  himself.  Neces- 
sity for  actual  ocular  witnesses  of  the  death  of  Jesus.  Seeming  discrepancy 
between  Mark  xv.  25,  and  John  xix.  14,  reconciled.  The  proof  demanded  by 
the  rulers  inconsistent  with  the  object  of  Christ's  mission.  Conduct  of  the  sol- 
diers. The  proof  demanded  by  the  chief  priests  and  scribes  not  adapted  to 
change  the  heart.  Omissions  of  the  Evangelists.  The  malefactor's  rebuke — 
his  repentance,  faith,  and  prayer,  a  wonderful  exhibition  of  the  power  and 
grace  of  Christ  in  his  greatest  humiliation — his  testimony  to  the  innocence 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  of  a  much  higher  order  than  Pilate's.  "The  penitent  male- 
factor more  fully  instructed  in  the  mystery  of  redemption,  while  hanging  on 
the  cross,  than  Peter,  John,  or  the  other  disciples  were  at  that  time — Jesus' 
gracious  promise — The  consciousness  of  the  soul  in  its  state  of  separation  from 


16  CONTENTS. 

the  body.  The  company  of  friends  around  or  near  the  cross.  Existence  of 
natural  affection  in  the  future  state.  The  exfiliation  of  Jesus  and  the  substi- 
tution of  John,  an  official  act.  Proofs  and  signs  of  his  Messiahship  (now  the 
Jews'  probation  as  a  nation  was  ended.)  The  abandonment  of  the  Father,  an 
indispensable  part  of  the  plan  of  redemption.  Misunderstanding  of  the  by- 
standers. One  other  prophecy  to  be  fulfilled.  Fulfilment  of  Psalm  Ixix.  21, 
Erroneous  belief  of  the  by-standers.  All  things  accomplished  necessary  for 
the  perfecting  of  the  new  creation.  Voluntary  separation  of  Christ's  spirit 
from  his  body  by  his  own  inherent  power— Eetention  of  his  spirit  up  to  the 
time  when  the  Paschal  Lamb  ought  to  have  been  slain — A  fulfilment  of  the 
type.  Symbolical  import  of  Matt,  xxvii.  51 — 5.3;  Luke  xxiii.  45.  Public  dis- 
plays of  the  Divine  power — A  new  dispensation — Risen  saints.  Impressive- 
ness  of  the  last  scene — Testimony  of  heathens  to  the  excellency  of  our 
Lord's  character.  Eftect  of  the  last  scene  upon  those  attracted  by  curiosity — 
Love  a  more  powerful  principle  than  fear,  illustrated  by  the  group  of  females 
in  the  distance.  Fulfilment  of  Ps.  xxxiv.  20;  Exod.  xii.46:  Numb.  ix.  10;  and 
also  a  partial  fulfilment  of  Zech.  xii.  10.  The  death  of  Jesus  established 
beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt.  The  request  of  Joseph  of  Arimathea.  Pro- 
vidential arrangements  for  the  accomplishment  of  Divine  purposes.  Nicode- 
mus's  care  of  the  body  of  our  Lord.  Sense  of  the  Psalmist  xvi.  10.  Jewish 
mode  of  burial.  An  over-ruling  providence  in  the  selection  of  the  place  of 
the  buriaL  Precaution  taken  by  the  disciples  to  secure  the  entrance  into  the 
sepulchre.  Observance  of  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  by  the  Jewish  females,  fol- 
lowers of  Jesus.  Disregard  of  their  own  law  of  the  Sabbath  by  the  chief 
priests  and  the  Pharisees.  The  evidence  of  our  Lord's  resurrection  by  Divine 
power  placed  beyond  all  doubt  or  question.         .        .        .         Pages  403 — 146 

CHAPTER  XII. 

A  short  harmony  of  the  chapters  to  be  considered.  The  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection equal  in  importance  to  any  other  in  the  Scriptures — absolutely  essen- 
tial to  the  truth  and  consistency  of  the  other  Scriptures.  First  and  second 
incarnation— the  headship  of  Christ  as  the  second  Adam — the  whole  doctrine 
of  the  glorified  church  inseparably  connected  with  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's 
resurrection.  The  Marys  at  the  sepulchre.  The  absence  of  all  that  can 
minister  to  vain  curiosity  an  unequivocal  note  of  the  inspiration  of  the  record 
— the  descent  of  the  angel,  the  earthquake,  the  removal  of  the  stone  not 
necessary  to  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  but  a  proof  to  the  watch,  and  through 
them  to  the  nation,  of  the  presence  and  power  of  God,  in  bringing  to  nought 
their  precaution.  The  address  of  the  angel  to  the  company  of  females  at  the 
sepulchre.  The  message  with  which  the  angel  charged  the  woman— Inter- 
course between  angels,  the  Saviour,  and  his  disciples.  The  flight  of  the  first 
party  of  females  from  the  sepulchre — Difficulty  in  harmonizing  this  part  of 
the  Evangelist's  record  removed.  Reproof  of  the  angels  to  the  females  for  their 
unbelief.  Providential  design  in  these  successive  companies  of  persons,  mul- 
tiplying proofs,  and  more  quickly  and  widely  circulating  the  news.  Impres- 
sion Mary  Magdalen's  communication  made  on  the  minds  of  Peter  and  John. 
John's  timidity.  Consistency  of  the  narrative  with  the  known  character  of 
these  apostles.  Efiect  on  John's  mind  of  his  visit  to  the  sepulchre.  Ministry 
of  angels  in  the  present  dispensation.  Question  of  the  angels — Mary's  igno- 
rance other  Lord's  character,  and  of  the  real  object  and  end  of  his  ministry  — 
Cause  of  Mary's  composure,  so  diflferent  from  the  manner  of  the  company  who 
fled  affrighted  from  the  sepulchre.  Mary's  view  of  Jesus,  though  unknown 
to  her.  'The  Saviour's  question  put  as  a  proof  to  Mary  of  his  bodily  presence. 
Spiritual  natures.  Mary's  recognition  of  her  Lord,  through  his  power  over 
her  mind  and  spirit — This  power,  an  attribute  with  which  he  will  endow  the 
renewed  nature  of  all  his  people,  when  they  shall  be  changed  into  his  like- 
ness. Christ's  prohibition  of  Mary's  touch  explained  by  taking  the  passage 
in  its  literal  sense — Christ  prefigured  by  the  High  Priest,  under  the  Levitical 
economy — the  type  to  be  fulfilled  in  all  points — Distinction  conferred  on  Mary 
Magdalene.  Jesns  in  his  future  interviews  with  his  disciples  no  longer  to  be 
considered  as  an  inhabitant  of  the  earth,  but  as  having  completed  his  earthly 
ministry,  as  the  rending  of  the  veil"  denoted  the  end  of  the  Levitical  economy. 
Character  of  the  narrative.  Occurrences  at  the  sepulchre  communicated  to 
the  Apostles  by  the  womeu.    Peter's  second  visit  to  the  sepulchre.    Diflference 


CONTENTS. 


17 


between  the  fee  ings  of  the  women  and  the  Apostles  on  Jesus'  anpearanoe  to 
them-Difierent  messages  to  his  disciples  by  the  two  com  an S^of  women 
Chrnts  risen  body  not  confined  to  the  earth  during  treXrdays-S^ 
qua  e  conception  of  the  attributes  of  our  Lord's  risen  humarbody  The  vfsit 
of  the  military  guard  to  Annas  and  Caiaphas.  The  Sanhedrim  convenid 
?romisTr::^e'S"from'if""   '"^.^^^'^1  *^^  "^^^^^^  ^^  "^^  SaXedH:^ 

Pages  446— 4'JO 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

Walk  to  Emmaus— Low  views  of  the  two  disciples  of  the  d\<rr,;i^   ^ffi  .         , 

pssiiiiiiigiit 
mmmmm0m 

mmiimm 

vision  necessary  to  make  Peter  comnrebenH   rnrll  ^  \  supernatural 
Pages  490 — 517 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

the  day  of  Pentecost     Thr^maa'c  „i  -^       •    ^  ■^°'^'*  ^  resurrection  and 


18  CONTENTS. 

second  appearance  of  our  Lord  to  his  male  disciples.  The  conviction  of 
Thomas.  Jesus  proves  his  omniscience,  and  consequently  his  divine  nature — 
Thomas's  recognition  of  his  human  and  divine  nature  in  the  heartfelt  confes- 
sion of  his  faith.  Illustration  of  the  character  which  Paul  ascribes  to  Jesus — 
The  resurrection  of  Jesus  an  essential  article  of  the  Christian  faith — The  fact 
of  the  resurrection  to  be  established  at  that  time  for  all  ages — Reason  of  our 
Lord's  appearing  specially  to  Thomas — The  principle  which  distinguishes  the 
dispensation  of  the  Holy  S23irit  from  that  of  our  Lord's  personal  ministry — The 
futility  of  the  argument  of  infidels — Office  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  seven 
disciples  at  the  sea  of  Tiberias — their  silence.  The  third  appearance  of  our 
Lord  to  his  male  disciples — the  special  reason  of  this  apjjearance.  Our  Lord's 
address  to  Peter — Peter  the  only  apostle  whose  personal  history  was  foretold. 
Peter's  curiosity — Our  Lord's  reply,  withholding  all  information,  except  that 
he  was  the  sovereign  disposer  of  John's  life.  Mistake  of  the  disciples.  The 
appearance  in  Galilee — Manner  of  it — Worship  offered  to  our  Lord — Our 
Lord's  response  to  the  worship  of  his  discijjles.  Scope  of  the  Ajjostolic  com- 
mission— Infant  baptism.  Imj)ortance  and  use  of  the  promised  miraculous 
endowments  in  laying  the  foundations  of  the  Church — their  long  contin- 
uance unnecessary.  Apj^earance  to  James— Final  appearance  of  our  Lord 
to  his  disciples  as  witnesses  of  his  ascension — A  paraphrase — Return  from 
Mount  Olivet  to  Jerusalem.  The  kingdom  of  God.  The  convening  of  the 
disciples.  John's  Baptism.  Misconception  of  the  apostles  in  relation  to  the 
kingdom.  Times  and  seasons  in  relation  to  the  purposes  of  redemption  con- 
fined to  the  Divine  mind.  The  Lord's  ascension.  The  Apostles'  employment 
until  the  Pentecost — Prayer  offered  to  the  Lord  Jesus — The  active  public 
ministry  of  the  gospel  not  committed  to  the  female  disciples.  The  Day  of 
Penteco'st Pages  517— 548. 


CHAPTEK  XV. 

The  glorification  of  the  crucified  body  of  Jesus.  The  feast  of  Pentecost — Short 
pauses  in  the  march  of  the  Divine  administration.  The  descent  of  the  Holy 
Spirit — The  first  effect  uiJon  the  Apostles — A  fulfilment  in  part  of  the 
Saviour's  promise,  at  his  last  interview  with  the  twelve  before  he  suffered — 
Difference  between  the  regenerative  and  the  miraculous  operations  of  the 
Holy  Spirit — Various  effects  on  the  minds  of  the  peojile.  Peter  repels  the 
calumny  of  the  Jews — Uses  the  event  as  a  proof  of  the  resurrection — Peter's 
argument — Design  of  the  obscurity  of  the  prophecies  relating  to  the  resurrec- 
tion and  exaltation  of  Christ — The  great  change  wrought  in  the  mind  of  Peter 
by  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  striking  contrasts  in  the  character  of  Peter  as  deli- 
neated in  the  gospels  and  the  first  fifteen  chapters  of  the  Acts.  Effect  of  the 
first  sermon  of  the  new  disjjensation.  The  only  miracles  of  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost— Object  of  conferring  miraculous  powers  on  the  Apostles  at  this  time — 
The  elect  Church — The  inheritance  of  the  elect  Church — The  visible  Church. 
The  miracle  of  healing — Peter's  discourse.  Means  employed  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  accomplish  his  own  work — Holiness  a  means  for  the  transmission  of 
Divine  power.  Chief  design  of  the  miracle  of  healing — Miracles  as  attestations 
of  authority,  irrespective  of  faith  in  the  subject — Miracles  of  healing  ujion  ap- 
plication of  the  subject;  faith  indispensable.  Change  in  the  Apostles'  address. 
The  second  personal  coming  of  the  Lord  and  the  restitution  of  all  things, 
suspended  by  Divine  appointment  upon  the  repentance  and  conversion  of 
Israel — The  national  existence  of  the  Jews  jjrolonged,  for  what  purpose — The 
Apostles'  observance  of  Levitical  rites  jjroj^er,  during  the  standing  of  the 
temple — The  first  offer  of  the  gospel  made  to  the  Jews  under  the  new  dispen- 
sation. A  new  epoch  in  the  national  history  of  the  Jews.  The  times  of 
refreshing.  The  diiferent  dispensations.  The  restitution  of  all  things. 
Opinion  that  the  Millennium  will  precede  the  coming  of  the  Lord  irrecon- 
cilable with  the  Scri])tures,  concerning  the  possible  nearness  of  that  coming. 
The  whole  subject  of  the  coming  dispensation  beyond  the  sphere  of  our  con- 
ceptions. The  restitution  retarded  by  the.  fall  of  Israel,  and  still  further  by 
the  falling  away  of  the  Church — The  times  of  restitution  dej)endent  upon  the 
full  execution  of  the  Saviour's  last  command.  .        .  Pages  548 — 575 


A  FEW  PRELIMINARY  WORDS. 


That  the  author  of  a  work  which,  either  as  to  its  substance 
or  its  method,  is  seriously  influenced  by  considerations  which 
are  not  discussed  in  the  work  itself,  should,  by  preliminary 
explanations,  or  even  by  a  large  introduction,  set  forth  those 
controlling  considerations,  is  extremely  natural,  may  often  be 
indispensable,  and  was  formerly  very  general.  But  it  is  not 
possible  for  one  human  being  so  to  possess  himself  of  the 
whole  thought  of  another,  as  to  perform  this  service  for  him, 
even  when  it  is  needed,  with  complete  success.  Moreover,  it  is 
only  in  works  of  a  peculiar  kind — and  this  work  of  Judge 
Jones  can  hardly  be  said  to  be  of  that  kind — that  such 
attempts  can  be  important,  even  when  they  are  successful.  It 
is  because  the  duties  of  friendship  are  sacred — sacred  towards 
the  dead — sacred  towards  those  who  survive — far  more  than 
because  there  is  any  need  of  it,  that  any  words  of  mine  pre- 
cede these  Notes  on  Scripture. 

Many  years  ago,. and  for  a  number  of  successive  years,  it 
was  my  fortune  to  be  immediately  connected,  as  owner,  pub- 
lisher, and  editor,  with  the  periodical  press.  Judge  Jones 
was  one  of  the  largest  and  most  valued  contributors  to  those 
pages  for  which  I  was,  in  so  many  ways,  responsible.  Exposi- 
tions of  Scripture,  and  expositions,  critical  and  historical,  of 
the  Papacy,  were  his  chief  themes.  This  literary  connection 
ripened  into  a  warm  and  lasting  friendship ;  and  in  this  man- 
ner were  those  abounding  opportunities  afforded,  to  appreciate 
justly  his  gifts,  his  attainments,  and  his  virtues,  and  to  speak 
with  the  greatest  confidence  of  his  remarkable  fitness  as  an 
expositor  of  the  word  of  God. 

Liberally  educated,  all  that  part  of  his  culture  was  made 
both  complete  and  permanent,  by  his  pursuing  the  profession 


20  PRELIMINARY   REMARKS. 

of  a  teacher  for  some  years  during  his  early  manhood  :  a  pro- 
fession which,  as  President  of  the  great  Institution  founded  by 
Mr.  Girard,  he  resumed  for  a  short  period  in  maturer  life. 
Trained  to  the  profession  of  the  Law,  and  for  a  number  of 
years  a  Judge,  the  habits  of  deep  research  and  patient  thought, 
which  made  that  noble  calling  familiar  to  him,  and  the  rec- 
titude of  mind  which  made  its  administration  honourable,  all 
alike  fitted  him,  at  the  same  time,  for  some  of  the  highest 
duties  of  an  expositor  of  sacred  Scripture.  To  a  knowledge, 
at  once  accurate  and  broad,  of  those  ancient  languages  in 
which  God  has  revealed  his  will  to  man,  he  added  a  familiar 
acquaintance  with  the  chief  languages,  both  ancient  and 
modern,  in  which  mankind  has  most  largely  discussed  divine 
things ;  and  in  them  all,  how  wide  and  thorough  his  reading 
was,  all  his  writings  testify.  Naturally  endowed  with  high 
faculties,  justly  balanced  and  nobly  directed;  enriched  with 
great  experience  of  life,  and  adorned  with  much  of  its  best 
success;  he  added  as  his  highest  fitness  for  his  favourite 
studies,  that  reverence  and  love  for  the  word  of  God,  that  con- 
formity of  heart  and  life  unto  it,  and  that  spiritual  insight  of 
its  mysteries,  which  they  who  have  not,  are  but  blind  leaders 
of  the  blind.  It  is  such  a  man,  the  last  and,  as  he  judged,  the 
best  labours  of  whose  life,  and  that  a  life  rather  long  than 
short,  are  contained  in  this  volume — nearly,  though  not  strictly, 
posthumous.  His  gentle  and  modest  spirit,  though  it  did  not 
direct,  desired  this  publication.  The  bereaved  partner  of  his 
life  lays  it  as  a  tribute  of  love  upon  the  altar  of  the  Lord.  If 
the  saints  of  the  Most  High  fructify  by  its  use,  its  whole  end  is 
gained. 

It  is  striking  and  very  affecting  to  observe,  in  all  the  scrip- 
tural expositions  of  Judge  Jones,  the  direction  which  his 
thoughts  took,  and  the  tenacity  with  which  his  mind  adhered 
to  that  which  occupied  it  most.  These  Notes  on  Scripture  are, 
in  effect,  an  exposition  of  the  Gospel  doctrine  concerning  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  this  diligent  student  of  the  Scriptures 
understood  it.  They  are  Notes  upon  those  portions  of  the 
Four  Gospels  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  embracing,  rather 
incidentally,  parallel  and  illustrative  passages  from  all  the 
other  inspired  books,  which  appeared  to  him  to  contain  and  to 


PRELIMINAKY   REMARKS.  21 

develop  the  Gospel  doctrine  concerning  the  Saviour  of  the 
world.  In  some  respects  they  are  critical — in  some  respects 
they  are  historical ;  but  it  is  their  expository  character  which 
chiefly  distinguishes  them — expository  in  the  sense  of  being 
carefully  and  continually  directed  towards  the  precise  under- 
standing of  the  entire  meaning  of  the  particular  inspired  state- 
ments as  contained  in  themselves,  and  as  illustrated,  enforced, 
or  limited  by  other  inspired  statements,  and  by  the  great  ideas, 
and  aim,  and  end  of  all  inspired  Scripture.  The  aspect  of  the 
work  is  not  devotional,  nor  is  it  controversial ;  nor  is  it,  pro- 
perly speaking,  dogmatical;  but  it  is  of  the  nature  of  a  judicial 
analysis,  and  determination  of  the  true  meaning  of  a  record, 
the  particular  portions  of  which  that  bear  specially  upon  cer- 
tain vast  topics,  have  been  submitted  to  a  most  rigorous 
scrutiny.  And  the  candid  reader  will  observe,  everywhere, 
the  studious  diligence  with  which  every  conclusion  is  made  to 
rest  on  special  Scriptures,  Avhich  are  constantly  cited ;  the 
judicial  fairness  with  which  conclusions  differing  from  his  own 
are  stated ;  the  modesty  with  which  new  interpretations,  and 
peculiar  opinions  are  announced;  and  the  blended  calmness 
and  directness  with  which  his  own  interpretations  and  judg- 
ments are  given. 

The  casual  reader  of  this  volume  may  receive  the  impression 
that  it  is  fragmentary  and  incoherent.  Whoever  will  carefully 
read  over,  in  connection,  the  tables  of  contents  prefixed  to  its 
fifteen  chapters,  will  perceive  how  erroneous  such  an  impression 
would  be.  Commencing  with  the  genealogy  of  Jesus,  the  work 
terminates  with  the  glorification  of  Christ.  Between  these  two 
points  lies  the  whole  work  of  the  Mediator  between  God  and 
man,  in  his  estate  of  humiliation,  and  also  the  beginning  of  his 
work  in  his  estate  of  exaltation  ;  and  all  is  discussed  from  the 
particular  point  of  view  occupied  by  the  author.  Of  the  seven 
chapters  at  the  close  of  the  volume,  three  are  devoted  to  the 
crucifixion  of  Christ ;  and  the  last  four  to  his  resurrection  and 
all  that  followed,  until,  and  including,  the  outpouring  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  From  the  beginning  to 
the  end,  the  chain  of  thought  and  the  sequence  of  the  facts  is 
rigorously  preserved ;  and  the  numerous  and  important  ques- 
tions of  an  incidental  kind,  which  were  obliged  to  be  discussed, 


22  PRELIMINARY   REMARKS. 

are  so  skilfully  disposed  as  to  strengthen,  instead  of  breaking 
the  continuity  of  the  development.  In  such  a  performance 
it  would  be  impossible  to  evade  the  expression  of  the  writer's 
opinions  upon  all  those  immense  topics  following  after  Pente- 
cost, Avhich  arise  out  of  the  dispensation  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
considered  in  his  estates  of  humiliation  and  exaltation ;  and  it 
is  not  improbable  that  the  deep  interest  which  Judge  Jones  is 
known  to  have  felt  for  many  years,  in  all  questions  connected 
with  the  second  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man,  may  have  been  a 
chief  cause  of  the  composition  of  this  work.  Undoubtedly, 
his  views  on  those  subjects  could  not  fail  to  enter  into  his  views 
of  many  preceding  subjects,  out  of  which  they  grew ;  and  the 
spirit,  and  method,  and  rule  of  his  interpretations  upon  strictly 
connected  topics,  could  hardly  fail,  in  such  a  mind  as  his,  to 
be  uniform  and  constant.  As  now  used,  the  word  Millen- 
narian  is  one  of  the  vaguest  ever  employed  to  designate  an 
opinion,  a  theory,  or  a  party.  Nevertheless,  in  a  sense  some- 
what peculiar  to  himself,  but  very  clear  and  decided,  Judge 
Jones  was  a  Millennarian ;  and  to  omit  stating  the  fact  here, 
would  have  been  deemed  by  himself,  unworthy,  if  not  sinful. 
While  it  is  true,  as  I  have  intimated,  that  the  views  enter- 
tained by  Judge  Jones  concerning  the  second  advent,  and  the 
numerous  and  sublime  events  dependent  on  it,  necessarily 
suppose  a  certain  sense  to  be  the  true  sense  of  various  passages 
of  Scripture  which  do  not  treat  immediately  of  that  second 
advent ;  it  by  no  means  follows  that  all  who  accept  this  tone 
and  particular  sense  of  those  passages  last  alluded  to,  must 
necessarily  accept  his  views  of  the  second  advent.  For  ex- 
ample, it  is  impossible  to  see  how  he  could  embrace  the  views 
he  held  concerning  the  second  advent,  if  he  had  not  been  a 
Calvinist;  but  it  is  very  easy  to  see  that  one  may  be  a  Cal- 
vinist  and  not  embrace  them.  Moreover,  there  are  multitudes 
of  topics  in  the  Scriptures — and  they  amongst  the  most  vital 
of  all — which  do  not  appear  to  have  any  assignable  relation  to 
any  special  class  of  opinions  touching  the  Millennium;  as,  for 
example,  our  Effectual  Calling,  its  nature,  and  the  manner  of 
its  occurrence.  The  object  of  stating  these  distinctions,  is  to 
point  out  how  naturally  it  may  occur,  and  to  assert  my  per- 
sonal  conviction  that   these  Notes  on  Scripture,  wholly  irre- 


PRELIMINARY   REMARKS.  23 

spective  of  "their  character  as  touching  any  doctrine  of  the 
Millennium,  are  of  extraordinary  value.  Many  questions  of 
great  difficulty  and  deep  interest  to  every  student  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, are  treated  Avith  great  clearness  and  force;  and  many 
more  of  high  personal  importance  to  every  human  being, 
arc  settled  with  singular  distinctness;  and  all  this  is  done 
with  a  simplicity  of  style  and  a  fruitfulness  of  matter  rarely 
combined. 

I  shall  not  attempt  to  estimate,  or  even  to  state  in  a  con- 
nected and  systematic  manner,  the  opinions  of  Judge  Jones 
dispersed  through  this  work,  on  those  vast  topics  which  em- 
brace the  whole  future  of  the  human  race,  and  of  the  kingdom 
of  God,  as  connected  with  this  earth.  They  are  topics  on 
which  my  own  views  have  been  laid  before  the  public  in  a 
permanent  form.  It  is  proper  to  say,  and  it  is  sufficient,  that 
I  adhere  to  what  I  have  published;  in  some  things  agreeing 
with  the  views  presented  in  these  Notes,  in  some  things 
dissenting  entirely  from  them,  in  some  things  standing  in 
great  uncertainty  of  mind  where  positive  opinions  are  herein 
expressed.  In  these  respects,  I  may  probably  consider  myself 
not  an  unfit  representative  of  the  great  mass  of  such  serious 
Christians,  now  alive,  as  have  anxiously  pondered  these  things, 
and  have  found  our  attainments  in  Divine  knowledge  and  the 
Divine  life,  not  adequate,  as  yet,  to  the  attainment  of  complete 
satisfaction  regarding  all  their  high  mysteries.  Very  shallow 
views,  which  long  prevailed  amongst  Protestant,  and  still 
longer  amongst  Papal  expositors,  no  longer  satisfy  the  minds 
of  God's  people;  and  my  long  and  wide  experience  as  an  office- 
bearer in  the  Church  of  Christ,  has  made  me  fully  aware,  that 
the  common  people  have  as  thoroughly  passed  from  those  inter- 
pretations, as  our  whole  current  religious  literature  shows  that 
the  minds  of  their  teachers  are  widely  unsettled  concerning 
them.  In  this  volume,  we  have  an  original,  independent, 
temperate,  and  able  contribution  in  aid  of  every  one  who  is 
inquiring  concerning  the  true  sense  of  God's  word,  touching 
the  great  promise  and  the  great  threat  of  the  New  Testament 
Scriptures.  They  who  the  most  readily  receive,  without 
careful  examination,  what  is  herein  written,  will  depart  the 
farthest  from  the  spirit  and  the  habit  of  him  who  wrote  it. 


24  PRELIMINARY   REMARKS. 

There  are  two  particulars  concerning  the  authorship  of  this 
volume  which,  though  subordinate  in  themselves,  seem  to  me 
to  demand  special  mention  here.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  the 
work  of  a  private  gentleman,  much  and  long  engaged  in 
important  affairs,  apparently  remote  from  such  studies;  thus 
recalling  the  times  when  the  highest  officers  of  state,  the 
noblest  gentlemen  and  scholars,  nay  the  great  publicists  and 
even  captains,  took  in  hand  to  record  the  doings,  and  to  ex- 
pound the  doctrine  of  the  Lord ;  and  thus  laid  at  the  feet  of 
Jesus,  tributes  which  still  adorn  and  enrich  his  people.  It  is 
a  precious  token  of  a  better  day  with  us.  In  the  second  place, 
it  comes  out  of  the  bosom  of  the  Presbyterian  Church — that 
great  branch  of  that  God-fearing  Reformed  Church — to  whose 
highest  turrets  men  look  to  see  the  light  of  God  as  it  rises, 
break  on  them  first  of  all ;  and  to  which  they  look  to  see  it 
linger  there  last  of  all,  when  it  departs.  One  more  of  her  sons 
has  lifted  up  his  clear  and  loud  call  to  dying  men — and  the  voice 
is  all  concerning  Jesus,  and  the  glory  that  is  to  be  revealed. 

K.  J.  B. 
Danville,  Kentucky, 

December,  1860. 


MEMOIR. 


Christian  BiOGRAPnY  is  cat  once  a  just  tribute  to  the  dead,  and 
an  instructive  monument  to  the  living.  When  a  useful  life  is 
closed  in  death,  and  a  character  moulded  into  completeness 
presents  itself  for  a  last  survey,  as  we  tenderly  consign  it 
among  the  treasures  of  memory,  both  philosophy  and  piety 
dictate  that  we  should  ponder  its  lesson,  and  heed  its  moral. 
And  should  we  find,  while  pursuing  the  pensive  task,  that  the 
world  has  been  made  richer  by  a  new  example  of  virtue,  that 
•we  gain  juster  views  of  the  dignity  and  value  of  human  exist- 
ence, and  of  the  entire  compatibility  of  deep  religious  senti- 
ments with  earthly  toils,  successes,  and  honours,  it  will  then 
seem  a  duty  as  well  as  privilege,  to  extend  and  perpetuate  the 
influence. 

It  is  such  a  moral  legacy  that  has  been  bequeathed  by  the 
learned  author  of  this  volume.  With  his  departure  has  passed 
away  a  type  of  the  Christian  scholar,  as  singular  in  its  excel- 
lence as  it  is  difficult  to  delineate.  It  must  remain  a  solitary 
model  of  blended  learning  and  goodness  that  may  be  revered 
and  cherished,  but  cannot  be  perfectly  matched  or  imitated. 
Some  may  have  approached  him  in  mere  erudition — some  may 
have  equalled  him  in  mere  piety — a  few,  under  the  impulse  of 
an  academic  or  clerical  vocation,  may  have  illustrated  as  sig- 
nally the  harmonious  union  of  these  two  attainments;  but  it 
was  his  rare  merit,  and,  it  would  seem,  his  peculiar  mission, 
that  while  actively  engaged  in  the  legal  profession,  he  should 
yet  make  himself  a  master  in  theology ;  and,  though  called  to 
public  positions  and  busied  with  secular  interests,  should  so 
thoroughly  fuse  together  the  judicial  virtues  and  religious 
graces,  as  to  present  the  two-fold  aspect  of  a  Christian  without 
a  trace  of  cant  or  enthusiasm,  and  a  jurist  without  a  taint  of 
duplicity  or  worldliness. 

That  such  a  life  on  review  should  seem  comparatively  un- 
eventful, may  remind  us  that  it  is  not  always  the  most  stirring 
careers  that  are  the  most  useful,  or  the  most  worthy  of  study 
and  imitation. 

Judge  Joel  Jones  was  born  in  Coventry,  Connecticut,  on  the 
26th  of  October,  1795.  Descended  from  Puritan  ancestry,  and 
carefully  trained  by  a  mother  who  was  of  the  same  religious 
race,  he  exemplified  the  inheritance  of  natural  virtue,  and  the 
covenant  mercy  which  is  from  generation  to  generation.  His 
4 


26  MEMOIR. 

father,  Amasa  Jones,  was  largely  engaged  in  mercantile  busi- 
ness as  well  as  farming.  His  mother  was  the  daughter  of  the 
Kev.  Dr.  Joseph  Huntington,  well  known  in  the  New  England 
churches.  He  was  the  eldest  of  nine  children.  The  first  years 
of  his  life  were  principally  spent  upon  the  farm;  but  even 
at  that  early  period,  it  is  said  that  "the  mature  and  elevated 
character  which  he  ultimately  developed  Avas  distinctly  fore- 
shadowed." 

When  he  was  about  fifteen  years  of  age,  an  uncle  for  whom 
he  was  named,  desired  to  associate  him  with  him  in  his  busi- 
ness, and  for  this  purpose  he  removed  to  Hebron.  Here, 
though  always  diligent  and  courteous,  he  soon  showed  that 
such  a  calling  was  not  consonant  with  his  intellectual  tastes  and 
aspirations.  Without  the  knowledge  of  any  one,  he  purchased  a 
Latin  grammar,  and  devoted  his  leisure  hours  to  self-prepara- 
tion for  his  future  course.  When  his  studious  habits  and 
inclinations  became  known,  both  his  uncle,  who  was  strongly 
attached  to  him,  and  his  father,  united  to  throw  obstacles  in 
his  way,  and  to  make  large  and  tempting  inducements  for  him 
to  remain  in  a  life  of  business.  But  his  determined  purpose, 
seconded  by  the  persuasive  counsels  of  his  mother,  prevailed, 
and  the  village  pastor  was  engaged  to  direct  his  preparations 
for  college. 

In  the  year  1813,  he  was  admitted  Freshman  at  Yale,  taking 
rank  from  the  first  with  the  best  scholars  of  his  class.  He  had 
not,  however,  been  enjoying  these  congenial  pursuits  longer 
than  six  months,  when  a  reverse  in  the  family  fortunes  threw 
a  dark  cloud  upon  his  prospects.  After  a  severe  conflict 
between  the  claims  of  filial  duty  and  that  love  of  learning 
which  became  the  master  passion  of  his  life,  he  at  length 
resolved  to  reconcile  both  by  devoting  to  them  both  the  pro- 
ceeds of  his  labour  as  a  teacher  of  youth  during  the  intervals 
of  study.  To  the  necessities  and  struggles  of  this  period,  as 
well  as  to  original  disposition,  he  no  doubt  owed  the  formation 
of  those  habits  of  untiring  industry,  perseverance,  and  system, 
which  characterized  his  Avhole  subsequent  career,  and  were  the 
foundation  of  his  success  and  usefulness;  and  so  proficient 
did  he  become  in  this  school  of  blended  trial  and  study,  that 
he  not  only  maintained  his  academic  standing,  but  digressed 
into  some  medical  studies  outside  of  the  course,  and  graduated 
with  the  Berkleian  prize,  and  at  but  one  remove  from  the 
highest  honours  of  his  class. 

His  first  deep  religious  convictions  seem  to  have  been 
received  during  his  college  life ;  but,  though  observant  of  out- 
ward church  duties,  and  for  a  period  superintendent  in  a 
Sabbath-school,  he  did  not  until  some  years  afterwards  make 
a  public  profession  of  his  faith. 


MEMOIR.  2T 

Among  the  life-long  friends  he  made  while  at  New  Haven 
was  the  late  Judge  Bristol,  with  whom  he  commenced  the  legal 
studies,  afterwards  finished  at  the  Law  School  in  Litchfield. 

The  family  having  removed  to  Wilkesbarre,  Pennsylvania, 
he  joined  them  there,  on  the  completion  of  his  education;  but, 
after  meeting  with  new  embarrassments,  at  length  removed  to 
Easton,  and  established  himself  in  the  practice  of  his  profes- 
sion. He  is  remembered  in  that  town  by  families  in  which 
he  was  always  a  welcome  visitor,  and  also  for  the  influence  he 
exerted  through  the  community  in  promoting  literary  tastes, 
and  sound  morals.  It  was  there,  too,  that  he  first  publicly 
united  with  the  church,  and  entered  with  new  interest  and 
success  into  religious  labours. 

^  In  the  year  1831,  June  14th,  at  Philadelphia,  he  was  mar- 
ried to  Miss  Eliza  P.  Sparhawk.  Of  their  six  children,  two 
only  are  living.  His  home  was  always  the  central  sphere  of 
his  life,  to  which  he  devoted  his  most  assiduous  cares,  and 
which  he  adorned  with  the  virtues  of  the  primitive  household 
of  faith. 

While  at  Easton  he  rose  rapidly  at  the  bar,  acquiring  a 
reputation  for  learning  and  ability.  Having  been  appointed 
by  the  Governor  of  Pennsylvania  one  of  three  Commissioners  to 
revise  the  laws  of  the  State,  he  came  frequently  to  Philadelphia 
to  meet  his  colleagues;  and  at  length,  after  having  declined 
several  other  proffers  of  judicial  position,  he  accepted  that 
which  brought  him  to  Philadelphia,  and  ultimately  established 
him  as  President  Judge  of  one  of  its  Courts.  From  this  post  he 
was  called  to  the  Presidency  of  Girard  College,  and  during  the 
brief  term  of  his  incumbency,  impressed  upon  that  Institution, 
then  in  its  formation,  a  marked  and  salutary  influence.  On  re- 
signing this  position  he  was  elected  Mayor  of  the  city  of  Phila- 
delphia, from  which  ofiice  he  retired  to  active  private  life,  and  was 
pursuing  with  all  his  early  zeal  his  professional  labours,  church 
duties,  and  favourite  studies,  when  it  became  sadly  evident  that 
his  physical  system,  so  long  overtaxed  by  incessant  mental 
application,  was  beginning  to  yield  to  fatal  disease.  Having 
reluctantly  abated  his  labours  and  submitted  to  the  necessary 
retirement  and  quiet  of  an  invalid,  after  a  severe  and  painful 
illness,  he  at  length  passed  away  from  the  bosom  of  his  family- 
circle  and  friends,  while  in  the  full  possession  of  his  faculties, 
and  with  an  assured  hope  of  glory.  The  event  occurred  in 
Philadelphia,  February  3,  1860.  It  was  noticed  by  the  daily 
newspaper  press  with  sketches  of  his  public  life  and  services, 
and  the  funeral  solemnities,  conducted  in  the  Second  Presby- 
terian Church,  were  attended  by  a  concourse  in  which  the 
learned  professions  were  largely  represented. 

In  attempting  to  estimate  a  character  tested  by  such  varied 


28  MEMOIR. 

positions  and  relations,  we  cannot  but  be  struck  with  its  steady 
truthfulness,  unity,  and  harmony. 

As  a  public  man.  Judge  Jones  has  left  a  reputation  of 
almost  singular  value.  He  was,  doubtless,  too  much  of  a 
scholar,  and  too  little  inclined  by  his  retiring  habits,  his  reli- 
gious tastes  and  principles,  to  adopt  congenially  much  of  the 
routine  which  has  become  essential  to  a  successful  politician. 
Yet,  he  never  held  an  office  or  discharged  a  trust  in  Avhich  he 
was  found  wanting  in  any  of  the  moral  qualifications  of  pro- 
bity, discretion,  and  true  solicitude  for  the  public  welfare ;  and 
if  his  political  friends  and  adversaries  alike  found  it  impossible 
to  draw  him  into  some  of  the  current  arts  of  partisanship,  he 
certainly  did  not  forfeit  their  respect  by  his  strict  adherence  to 
duty,  right,  and  principle. 

As  a  jurist,  his  peculiar  excellence  is  too  much  a  matter  of 
professional  appreciation,  to  admit  of  extended  notice  in  these 
reflections.  His  pupils  and  associates  hastened  to  bear  testi- 
mony to  his  uniform  official  courtesy  and  propriety,  to  his 
accurate  habits  of  thought  and  expression,  to  his  severe  dis- 
crimination, to  his  sound  practical  judgment,  to  the  value  of 
his  judicial  decisions,  his  legal  consultations  and  opinions, 
and  to  his  thorough  mastery  of  the  whole  philosophy,  litera- 
ture, and  practice  of  jurisprudence. 

As  a  church  officer  he  left  vacancies  lamented  alike  for  the 
personal  intercourse  and  judicious  counsel  which  they  termi- 
nated. In  the  various  ecclesiastical  Boards,  of  which  he  was 
an  active  and  punctual  member,  his  literary  and  legal  opinions, 
always  freely  bestowed,  were  invaluable.  In  the  church, 
of  which  for  several  years  he  was  a  ruling  elder,  his  charac- 
teristics were  fidelity,  humility,  conscientiousness,  an  edify- 
ing fervour  and  unction,  and  a  blameless  and  holy  life.  The 
prayer-circle  found  him  always  at  his  post;  and  while  leading 
its  devotions,  with  his  rich  scriptural  phraseology  drawn  from  a 
heart  imbued  with  the  mind  of  the  Spirit,  and  alike  removed 
from  the  language  of  literature  or  of  conversation,  the  scholar 
and  the  lawyer  for  the  time  so  wholly  disappeared  in  the  hum- 
ble Christian,  that  the  lowliest  listener  found  himself  in  sym- 
pathy. His  familiar  presence  will  long  be  missed  from  the 
scene  of  worship,  whither  he  came  with  such  regularity,  and  at 
each  returning  communion  so  devoutly  ministered  at  the  table 
of  his  Master. 

But  it  was  as  a  trained  and  ripe  scholar  that  he  impressed 
himself  most  obviously  and  characteristically  upon  the  casual 
observer.  Though  no  trace  of  pedantry  tinged  his  ordinary 
intercourse,  yet  it  was  impossible  not  to  see  that  his  stores  of 
learning;  were  indeed  vast — that  his  erudition  was  accurate, 
profound,  and  extensive;  involving  solid  acquirements  rather 


MEMOIR.  29 

than  the  more  graceful  accomplishments.  Both  fitted  and 
inclined  by  nature  for  severe  studies,  he  had  furnished  himself 
with  the  aids  of  two  libraries — the  one  enriched  with  treasures 
of  divinity,  and  the  other  not  less  remarkable  in  the  depart- 
ment of  his  profession;  and  joining  to  these  appliances  a 
thorough  mastery  of  ancient  and  modern  languages,  he  entered 
and  traversed  the  whole  field  of  human  learning,  until  there 
was  scarcely  a  recess  left  unvisited. 

In  jurisprudence,  his  acquirements  have  been  described  as 
exhaustive.  He  was  "  conversant  not  only  with  the  English 
common  law,  but  with  the  civil  law  of  Rome  and  the  modern 
European  systems.  The  compilations  of  Justinian  were  no  less 
familiar  to  him  as  objects  of  study  than  the  Commentaries  of 
Coke.  Indeed,  from  his  taste  for  antiquities  and  for  compara- 
tive jurisprudence,  he  was  not  only  peculiarly  qualified  but 
intellectually  inclined  to  explore  the  doctrines  of  the  law  to 
their  historical  sources,  and  gather  around  them,  in  tracing 
their  development,  all  the  accessories  wdiich  history  and  learn- 
ing could  supply.  This  was  to  him  a  loving  labour — for  he 
regarded  the  law  as  a  lofty  science,  and  its  practice  as  the 
application  of  ethical  principles  by  a  trained  logic."  And  he 
has  adorned  the  literature  of  his  profession  with  productions 
that  will  remain  as  monuments  of  his  learning  and  industry. 

In  theology,  his  attainments  were,  perhaps,  even  more  varied 
and  remarkable.  He  was  closely  familiar  with  the  versions  of 
the  original  Hebrew  and  Greek  Scriptures,  with  the  early 
Christian  fathers,  with  the  writings  of  the  scholastic  theolo- 
gians and  of  the  English  divines,  particularly  those  of  the 
Westminster  Assembly;  and  if  he  neglected  the  modern  Ger- 
man theology,  it  was  more  from  a  spiritual  distaste  for  some  of 
its  remote  tendencies  than  from  any  want  of  preparation  for 
its  acquisition.  Into  the  rarely  explored  fields  of  Rabbinical 
literature,  both  ancient  and  modern,  he  had  so  extensively 
penetrated  as  to  have  acquired  a  European  reputation ;  while 
in  the  literature  and  history  of  the  Millennarian  controversy, 
which  he  made  a  speciality,  he  was  without  a  superior  in  this 
or  any  country.  His  collection  of  books  upon  the  subject,  it  is 
believed,  is  unequalled.  He  brought  to  the  prophetical  Scrip- 
tures his  legal  habits  of  interpretation,  and,  by  an  original 
exegesis,  had  constructed  upon  the  basis  of  the  orthodox 
theology  a  doctrine  of  the  futurities  of  Christianity,  which  was 
not  a  mere  theory,  but  inwrought  with  his  whole  personal  expe- 
rience. The  second  coming  of  Christ,  as  ever  imminent,  was 
with  him  a  belief  that  imparted  a  glow  to  his  whole  piety, 
swayed  his  daily  conduct,  and  invested  his  life  with  an  habitual, 
though  cheerful,  solemnity. 

In  philology,  he  had  made  himself  master  of  the  Oriental, 


30 


MEMOIR. 


classical,  and  moflern  languages.  He  had  a  linguistic  taste 
and  tact,  which  made  such  acquisitions  a  pastime  rather  than  a 
drudgery. 

As  a  well-read  lawyer,  a  writer  and  a  thinker,  a  linguist,  a 
theologian,  a  biblical  critic,  he  could  have  taken  rank  with  the 
most  eminent.  His  attainments  in  divinity  were  so  peculiar  in 
one  not  trained  for  the  pulpit  as  to  have  occasioned  the  remark 
at  his  funeral:  "But  yesterday  the  scholars  of  the  Church  were 
gathered  at  the  grave  of  its  most  learned  clergyman*— there 
are  those  present  who  will  deem  it  no  exaggeration  to  say,  that 
to-day  we  are  burying  its  most  learned  layman." 

The  only  regret  that  can  be  felt  in  view  of  such  immense 
knowledge  is,  that  it  must  perish  from  among  us  without  ade- 
quate memorial ;  and  that,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  anony- 
mous contributions  to  periodical  literature,  and  an  occasional 
volume  for  the  instruction  of  youth,  he  has  so  wronged  by  his 
modesty  his  reputation  and  usefulness.f 

It  was  this  ardent  love  of  learning  for  its  own  sake,  and 
almost  without  conscious  regard  to  its  uses  and  advantages, 
which,  fed  by  long  indulgence,  had  become  an  absorbing 
passion,  and  even  threatened  to  verge  into  a  besetting  in- 
firmity. It  showed  itself  in  a  desire  for  the  accumulation  of 
curious  volumes  and  ancient  editions,  and  for  the  acquisition  of 
extinct  languages.  A  rare  old  book,  if  it  could  be  procured  at 
any  sacrifice  short  of  a  principle,  was  a  temptation  it  was 
simplyirapossible  for  him  to  resist.  He  expended  large  sums 
upon  his  theological  library. 

His  heart  warmed,  as  with  instinctive  sympathy,  toward 
needy  scholars  and  struggling  students,  who,  on  applying  to 
him,  were  always  sure  of  a  welcome  and  a  helping  hand.  He 
lived  the  life  of  a  student,  amid  the  bustle  of  a  great  city  and 
under  the  rigorous  claims  of  a  laborious  profession,  and  was 
never  happier  than  Avhen  secluded  from  the  world  among  his 
treasured  books,  or  discoursing  to  a  congenial  friend  on  his 
favourite  views  in  theology. 

*  Rev.  J.  Addison  Alexander,  D.  D. 

t  Of  his  theological  publications,  the  following  may  now  be  mentioned  as  the 
most  prominent: 

Articles  in  the  Princeton  Revieto  on  Protestantism ;  in  the  Baltimore  Literary 
and  Rehyious  Magazine,  and  the  Spirit  of  the  Nineteenth  Century;  and  in  the 
Jewish  Chronicle,  over  the  signature  of  "Azor;"  ^^  Review  of  the  Discussion 
between  Bishop  Hughes  and  Dr.  John  Breckinridge;"  "Notes  on  Scripture,"  over 
the  signature  of  "Piiilo,"  in  the  Theological  and  Literary  Journal,  embracing 
a  continuous  commentary  upon  the  Gospel  history. 

"  The  Story  of  Joscjih,  or  the  Patriarchal  Age." 

He  also  translated  from  the  French,  with  original  notes,  "Outlines  of  a 
nistory  of  the  Court  of  Rome,  and  of  the  Temporal  Power  of  the  Popes,"  and 
edited  and  caused  to  be  published  "  The  Literalist,"  in  5  vols.  8vo,  adding  a 
treatise  of  his  own,  entitled  "Essays  on  the  Kingdom  of  God,"  by  "Philo- 
Basilicus." 


MEMOIR.  31 

And  yet,  with  all  his  learning,  he  was  still  content  to  be  a 
pupil  in  the  school  of  godliness,  and  a  scholar  at  the  feet  of 
Jesus.     Without  pedantry,  without  intellectual  pride,  without 
sophistry,  or  scepticism,  or  vain  philosophy,  he  preserved  the 
humility  and  simplicity  of  a  lowly  disciple  through  all  the  temp- 
tations of  learned  investigation,  and  would  have  esteemed  it  the 
most  precious  of  privileges  to  have  been  permitted  to  devote 
himself  exclusively  to  sacred  and  scriptural  studies.      A  new 
view    of   a  familiar  text,  or    solution    of   a    difficult   passao-e, 
delighted  him  more  than   any  other  intellectual   acquisition; 
and  though  he   brought  to   such  researches   all    the    irksome 
appliances  of  grammar,  lexicon,  and  concordance,  comparison 
of  versions  and  citation  of  authorities,  yet  his  reverence  for  the 
original  as  an  actual  Divine  utterance,  made  the  exercise  devo- 
tional as  well  as  critical,  and  had  become  so  much  the  habit  of 
his  mind  when  quoting  scriptural  phrases,  that  even  his  dying 
protestations  were  interspersed  with  exegetical  allusions.     He 
regarded  his  commentaries  as  the  most  valuable  labour  of  his 
life.     Will  they  not  also  remain  as  his  most  fitting  monument? 
If  we  turn  away  from  these  more  public  actions  and  visible 
traits  which  make  up  his  ordinary  reputation,  and  penetrate 
into  his  private  life  and  experience,  we  find  ourselves  in  pres- 
ence of  a  character  which  cannot  be   appreciated  from  any 
mere   description — it  was   so   simple,   equable,  and  pure.      It 
was  the  true  gentle  heart  of  a  child  masked  under  the  gravity 
of  a  sage,  and   expressing  itself  in  a  blended  kindness  and 
decorum  which  had  the  grace  of  truth  itself,  and  was  utterly 
lost   upon   all   who  could  not  come  within  the  circle  of  his 
spiritual  sympathies.     Though  unassuming,  he  was  still  content 
with  himself  in   any  human  presence.     He   was  incapable  of 
pretence  or  guile,  and  shunned  display. 

But  it  was  his  deep  and  fervent  piety  which  formed  his 
crowning  characteristic.  This  was  of  a  type  growing  rare  in 
these  days  of  busy  philanthropy  and  religious  dissipation. 
It  partook  of  his  quiet,  undemonstrative  nature — was  an 
intensely  individual  sentiment  engrafted  upon  a  deeply  rever- 
ential and  trustful  disposition — had  been  chastened  by  severe 
bereavements,  of  which  he  could  never  speak  without  emotion, 
and  rigorously  trained  in  daily  duty,  until  it  became  the  ever 
ascendant  power  of  the  soul.  Religion  in  him  had  acquired 
the  permanence  of  a  habit  and  the  force  of  a  regulating  prin- 
ciple. It  pervaded  his  whole  character  and  life,  and  was 
carried  by  him  into  every  position  and  all  occasions— not  as 
a  profession,  but  because  he  could  not  do  otherwise;  and  even 
in  the  most  worldly  associations,  though  never  obtruded,  still 
made  itself  felt  with  his  very  presence  as  an  atmosphere  of 
holiness  and  a  rebuke  to  sin.      All  knew  that  he  was  a  godly 


I 


32  MEMOIE. 

man,  though  no  expression  of  mere  personal  experience  was 
ever  allowed  to  escape  his  lips. 

It  was  only  when  disease  and  the  prospect  of  death  invaded 
his  characteristic  reserve  and  equanimity,  that  his  secret  walk 
with  God  began  to  reveal  itself  with  a  richness,  a  tenderness 
and  beauty,  that  surprised  even  his  most  familiar  friends.  His 
spirit  seemed  lingering  as  upon  the  very  borders  of  heaven.  His 
heart  was  full  of  Christian  love  toward  all  who  approached  him. 
To  his  relatives,  his  friends,  his  pastor,  his  fellow-members  of 
the  session,  he  sent  messages  of  kindly  counsel  and  aifection. 

His  only  expressed  anxiety  to  live  was,  that  he  might  com- 
plete some  Scripture  studies  in  which  he  hoped  to  embody  the 
matured  results  of  his  investigation  of  Divine  truth.  Between 
this  holy  solicitude  and  the  commencing  appreciation  of  the 
glory  shortly  to  be  revealed,  he  wavered,  like  the  Apostle,  in  a 
strait  between  two — willing  to  remain,  yet  having  the  desire  to 
depart  and  be  with  Christ,  which  is  far  better.  Once,  while 
weighing  this  latter  event  as  probable,  he  suddenly  exclaimed, 
with  an  eye  scanning  unblenched  the  whole  dread  futurity, 
"Blessed  Saviour!  do  I  not  love  thee?     Show  me  thy  glory." 

But  it  would  be  trespassing  upon  the  privacies  of  a  home 
so  lately  bereft  of  his  presence,  to  enlarge  upon  those  sacred 
moments.  It  was  a  death-bed  around  which  was  shadowed  no 
terror.  Such  unclouded  tranquillity,  such  perfect  assurance, 
such  strong  intelligent  faith,  such  humility,  trustfulness,  and 
tender  affection,  such  glimpses  of  the  heavenly  glory,  made  it 
like  the  exit  of  a  saint  of  the  olden  times  of  our  faith  ;  and 
when  at  length  the  bodily  pulse  began  to  wane,  the  beatific 
vision  so  grew  upon  his  spirit  as  to  swallow  up  all  earthly 
interests  and  affections,  and  even  illumine  the  clouds  of 
physical  anguish  with  the  prophetic  light  of  that  broken  utter- 
ance— the  last  ever  breathed  from  his  lips  on  earth — "^  far 
more  exceeding  and  eternal  weight  of  glory.'''  An  hour  of 
placid  breathing  succeeded,  during  which  he  sank  to  rest  so 
peacefully,  that  the  practised  eye  of  his  physician  alone  de- 
tected the  moment  of  departure. 

r  How  the  light  of  heaven  falls  in  holy  tranquillity  upon  the 
couch  of  the  dying  believer !  What  a  deep,  rich  calm  there 
ensues  upon  the  turmoil  of  life  and  the  pains  of  parting  and 
dissolution!  We  would  not  disturb  it  with  one  murmur  of 
repining ;  and  though  life  for  a  while  must  seem  impoverished, 
and  the  earth  vacant  and  lonely, -yet  we  soon  learn  to  thank 
God  for  the  grace  illustrated  in  the  life  and  death  of  his  ser- 
vants, and  for  one  more  proof  that,  even  in  this  sinful  world, 
true  virtue  shall  not  lose  its  reward. 

C.  W.  S. 

Philadelphia,  December,  1860. 


NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 


CHAPTER    I. 

Genealogy  of  Jesus. — Form  of  Government  apiJointed  for  the  tribes  of  Israel  and 
for  the  land  God  gave  them. — Connection  between  the  representation  of  Jere- 
miah xxxi.  15,  and  the  massacre  of  the  children  of  Bethlehem  by  Herod. 

Matthew  i.  1.  "  The  book  of  the  generation  of  Jesus  Christ, 
the  son  of  David,  the  son  of  Abraham,"  which  may  be  para- 
phrased thus:  The  table  of  the  genealogy  of  Jesus,  who  is  the 
Christ,  that  great  King  in  whom  the  covenants  God  made  with 
Abraham  and  David  met  and  were  fulfilled.  This  title  is  not 
confined  to  the  first  seventeen  verses.  It  extends  to  the  whole 
chapter. 

The  design  of  the  Evangelists  in  composing  the  Gospels  was 
to  prove  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  whom  the  Jews  had  just  ■ 
before  rejected  and  put  to  death,  Acts  ii.  36,  is  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God,  Luke  i.  4.  The  Evangelist  John  expressly  de- 
clares this  as  his  motive,  xx.  31 ;  and  Matthew  virtually  does 
so  in  this  verse.  Had  it  been  his  object  merely  to  deduce  the 
pedigree  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  he  would  not  have  connected  his 
name  immediately  with  the  names  of  David  and  Abraham,  nor 
would  he  have  given  him,  in  this  place,  the  title  of  Christ,  or 
king.  It  would  have  been  sufficient  to  say:  The  book  of  the 
generation  of  Jesus — Abraham  begat  Isaac,  and  Isaac  begat 
Jacob,  &c. 

To  prove  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  it  was  necessary  to  show 
his  descent  from  David,  Matt.  xxii.  42.  Had  he  descended 
from  Levi,  he  might  have  been  a  priest,  but  not  the  Cln-ist, 
Heb.  vii.  14.  Hence  the  words,  "son  of  David,"  denote  the 
first  proof,  or  order  of  proof,  of  the  Messiahshin  of  Jesus,  and 
were  added  for  that  reason.  But  why  add  also,  "the  son  of 
Abraham?"  This  was  implied  in  his  being  the  son  of  David, 
5 


34  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

for  David  descended  from  Abraham.  And  why  did  the  Evan- 
gelist not  add,  "the  son  of  Shem,"  or  some  other  earlier 
ancestor  of  David  ?  see  Luke  iii.  34 — 38.  The  answer  to  both 
these  questions  is:  the  former  were  necessary  to  state  fully  the 
Evangelist's  design  in  composing  the  gospel,  the  latter  would 
have  been  superfluous. 

This  will  appear,  if  we  reflect  that  the  Christ  was  the  seed 
especially  promised  to  Abraham,  Rom.  ix.  7;  Gal.  iii.  16,  19, 
although  afterwards  promised  to  David  under  new  relations. 
In  other  words,  the  two  great  covenants,  viz.  the  Abrahamic 
and  Davidic  or  royal  covenant,  both  met  and  were  fulfilled  in 
the  person  of  Jesus.  Hence,  we  infer  that  the  Evangelist's 
design  in  the  first  verse  of  the  gospel  was  to  propound,  for  the 
consideration  of  his  readers,  Jesus  as  the  seed  of  these  two 
great  national  covenants.  The  eff"ect  of  these  additions  to  the 
proper  personal  name  of  our  Lord,  then,  is  to  circumscribe  and 
define  the  subject  he  proposed  to  treat,  as  if  the  Evangelist  had 
said,  "  I  propose  to  write  the  history  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  who 
is  the  seed  first  covenanted  to  Abraham,  and  afterwards  to 
David,  and  therefore,  the  Messiah  or  Christ." 

The  table  of  pedigree  is  then  immediately  added  as  the  first 
proof  of  this  proposition.  This  was  a  necessary,  but  not  of  itself 
a  complete  proof.  Joseph,  the  husband  of  Mary,  was  a  descend- 
ant of  both  David  and  Abraham,  Matt.  i.  20,  yet  not  the 
-(Jhrist.  To  complete  the  proof,  therefore,  the  Evangelist,  as  he 
proceeds,  introduces,  in  logical  order,  other  facts,  which  serve 
not  only  to  discriminate  Jesus  from  every  other  descendant  of 
David,  but  to  evince  the  truth  of  his  proposition  boyond  a  rea- 
sonable doubt.  In  general  terms  they  may  be  stated  thus: 
1.  The  human  genealogy  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  2.  His  divine 
generation,  i.  19.  3.  Extraordinary  public  events  which 
occurred  about  the  time  of  his  birth,  and  the  efi'ect  they  had 
upon  the  mind  of  the  king  of  Judea,  chap.  ii.  1,  2,  3 — 9,  16. 

4.  The  ministry  and  testimony  of  John  the  Baptist,  chap,  iii, 

5.  The  miracles  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  many  of  which  are  recorded 
to  show  that  they  were  just  such  works  as  the  prophets  fore- 
told Messiah  should  perform,  iv.  23,  25.  6.  The  divine  eleva- 
tion and  purity  of  his  doctrine,  chap.  v. — vii.  7.  The  manner 
of  his  death,  xxvii.  50,  54.     8.   His  resurrection,  chap,  xxviii. 

Some  authors,  as  Whiston,  suppose  that  the  first  portion  of 
this  gospel,  as  far  as  chap.  xiv.  12,  has  been  greatly  disar- 
ranged. Others  even  call  in  question  the  authenticity  of  the  first 
two  chapters.     See  Bowyer's  Conjectures  on  Matt.  iii. 

The  foregoing  observations  furnish  sufiicient  grounds  of  dis- 
sent from  all  such  surmises.  The  matters  contained  in  the 
gospel  are  logically  arranged  with  a  view  to  prove  the  proposi- 


GENEALOGY    OF   JESUS.  35 

tion  contained  in  the  first  verse,  which,  as  before  explained, 
"was  not  only  the  most  important,  but,  in  view  of  the  .sin  and 
folly  of  rejecting  him,  appalling  to  the  nation.  Had  Pilate 
written  over  the  cross,  "  This  is  Jesus,  the  son  of  David,  the 
son  of  Abraham,  the  king  of  the  Jcavs,"  it  would  have  been 
much  more  offensive  to  the  priests  than  the  one  he  actually 
wrote ;  for  it  would  have  charged  them  with  rejecting  and  put- 
ting to  death  that  great  deliverer  and  king,  sent  to  them  in 
fulfilment  of  those  Divine  promises,  which  were  the  most  pre- 
cious inheritance  of  the  nation. 

We  regard  this  gospel  as  intended  specially  for  Jews.  It 
begins  abruptly.  It  takes  for  granted  that  the  readers  are 
well  acquainted  with  Jewish  history.  It  was  probably  written 
in  Hebrew  and  Greek  by  the  Evangelist  himself.  See  a  Tract 
by  Dr.  Tregelles  on  this  question.  It  is  not  improbable  that 
many  authentic  gospels  were  composed  for  the  use  of  that  peo- 
ple by  inspired  men,  which  may  have  been,  and  probably  were, 
written  in  the  Hebrew,  or  the  vernacular  dialect  of  the  coun- 
try; and  that  to  such  the  Evangelist  Luke  refers  in  the  first 
verse  of  his  gospel,  Luke  i.  1.  If  so,  it  was  a  gracious  provi- 
sion for  that  people,  suited  to  the  exigency  of  their  times  and 
condition  as  a  nation,  and  quite  in  accordance  with  the  reason 
of  the  injunction  our  Lord  gave  to  his  apostles,  Luke  xxiv.  47, 
"beginning  at  Jerusalem."  See  notes  on  Acts  iii.  19 — 21. 
Their  time  was  short.  The  gospel  must  be  made  known  to 
them  by  writings  and  by  preaching  soon,  or  it  would  be  too 
late.  Other  nations  could  wait,  as  their  times  were  to  be  pro- 
longed. If,  then,  we  suppose  the  gospels  referred  to  by  Luke 
were  like  this  gospel  of  Matthew,  written  in  Greek  or  Hebrew, 
or  both,  we  can  account  for  their  loss  by  supposing  they  had 
served  their  special  purpose  when  the  nation  was  destroyed,  and 
the  people  dispersed.  This  gospel  of  Matthew,  however,  was 
preserved  for  the  instruction  of  the  Gentile  church.  See 
Whitby  and  Doddridge  on  Luke  i.  1.  Also  Clark  and  Town- 
send,  at  the  same  place. 

Matt.  i.  2.  "Abraham  begat  Isaac,  and  Isaac  begat  Jacob, 
and  Jacob  begat  Judas,  and  his  brethren." 

We  observe  that  neither  Ishmael  nor  Esau  is  included  in  the 
enumeration.  It  is  true  they  were  not  ancestors  of  Jesus,  nor 
were  the  brethren  of  Judas.  This  is  a  sufficient  reason  why 
their  names  should  not  be  included  in  a  table  of  pedigree,  as 
such.  Yet,  as  the  Evangelist  has  respect  to  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,  it  was  important  to  refer  generally  to  all  the  sons  of 
Jacob,  because  they  were  embraced  by  it,  and  be  does  so.  For 
the  same  reason  Zara  is  mentioned,  verse  3.  But  no  allusion 
is  made  to  the  other  sons  of  Abraham  or  Isaac,  because  they 


36  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 

were  to  be  numbered  among  the  Gentiles,  Rom.  ix.  7;  Gal. 
iv.  22. 

Matt.  i.  6.  "And  Jesse  begat  David  the  king,  and  David 
the  king  begat  Solomon" — not  Solomon  the  king. 

Both  the  addition  and  the  omission  are  significant.  It  aams 
not  to  give  greater  honour  to  David  than  to  Solomon  that  this 
distinction  was  made:  Solomon  was  as  truly  a  king  as  David, 
and  his  reign  was  even  more  glorious.  See  Matt.  vi.  29. 
There  is  an  allusion  here  to  the  royal  covenant  or  the  covenant 
of  the  kingdom,  which  God  ma*de  with  David,  of  which  we  have 
an  account  in  2  Sara.  vii.  12,  18 — 29;  1  Chron.  xvii.  17.  To 
the  same  covenant,  the  angel  Gabriel  refers  in  his  address  to 
Mary.     Luke  i.  32,  33. 

There  is,  perhaps,  also  an  allusion  to  the  typical  relation  of 
David  to  the  Messiah.  The  mercies  of  David  were  made  sure 
by  covenant,  Isaiah  iv.  3 ;  Acts  viii.  34.  ,  They  were  not 
like  Adam's,  Gen.  ii.  17,  and  Saul's,  liable  to  forfeiture  by  dis- 
obedience, 1  Sam.  xiii.  13,  14;  xvi.  1;  2  Sam.  vii.  14,  15. 
No  other  king  of  Israel  was  ever  the  object  of  so  great  conde- 
scension and  grace  as  David.  He  was  not  only  king  by  divine 
right — a  type  of  the  second  Adam,  but  an  everlasting  kingdom 
is  made  sure  to  him  and  his  seed,  that  is  Christ,  Dan.  vii.  13, 
14,  who  is  the  second  Adam.     See  notes  on  Matt.  ix.  6. 

The  meaning  of  the  Evangelist,  then,  may  be  thus  para- 
phrased: "And  Jesse  begat  David,  that  king  to  whom  and  to 
whose  seed  the  kingdom  was  made  sure  and  perpetual  by  the 
covenant  of  God  with  him." 

Matt.  i.  12.  "And  after  they  were  brought  to  Babylon, 
Jechonias,"  &c.,  and  verse  17,  last  clause. 

The  Evangelist  mentions  the  carrying  away  of  the  tribes  of 
Judah  and  Benjamin  to  Babylon,  but  says  nothing  of  their 
return  from  this  captivity.  The  reason  is,  neither  these  nor 
the  ten  tribes  which  had  previously  been  carried  into  captivity, 
had  been  restored  in  the  sense  of  the  covenant.  God  had 
promised  Abraham  to  make  him  the  father  of  an  innumerable 
posterity,  the  father  of  nations,  the  father  of  kings.  He  had 
promised  to  give  him  a  country  for  his  posterity  to  dwell  in, 
even  the  land  of  Canaan.  He  had  also  promised  him  his 
blessing  and  protection  against  enemies,  and  great  renown ;  also 
to  make  him  the  means  of  blessing  the  Avhole  world.  And  all 
these  promises  God  had  made  sure  to  him  and  his  seed  for  ever 
by  an  oath.  See  Gen.  xii.  1,  3;  xiii.  14 — 17;  xv.  5;  xvii.  3 — 8; 
xviii.  18;  xxii.  17,  18;  Rom.  iv.  13.  These  promises  were 
afterwards  renewed  and  confirmed  to  Isaac,  Gen.  xxvi.  1 — 5; 
xxviii.  4,  29,  and  to  Jacob,  Gen.  xxviii.  13,  15;  xxxv.  11,  12; 
xlvi.  3. 


GENEALOGY    OF   JESUS.  37 

The  Jc'ws,  for  whom  this  Evangelist  especially  wrote,  were 
sensible  that  these  great  and  glorious  promises  had  never  been 
fulfilled.  The  ten  tribes  were  carried  into  captivity,  B.  c.  721, 
and  had  never  returned.  The  two  other  tribes  were  carried 
into  captivity  B.  C.  606,  and  very  few  of  them  comparatively 
afterwards  returned.  The  Samaritans,  a  mongrel  race,  pos- 
sessed the  central  parts  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  the  descend- 
ants of  the  returned  Jews  were  subject  to  the  Romans,  and 
obliged  to  submit  to  the  arbitrary  decrees  of  that  heathen 
power.  They  had  not  in  fact  been  an  independent  people  at 
any  time,  after  their  captivity  B.  c.  606,  except  about  forty 
years,  and  during  that  time  they  were  under  princes  not  of  the 
tribe  of  Judah,  but  of  Levi. 

The  nation's  hope  even  at  that  time  was  centred  in  the 
expected  Messiah  or  Christ.  None  expected  deliverance  till 
he  should  come ;  but  with  his  coming,  the  nation  expected  the 
realization  of  God's  covenants  with  Abraham  and  David, 
Luke  i.  71;  ii.  26,  30,  33;  Acts  i.  6. 

What  particulars  were  included  in  the  nation's  hope,  may  be 
learned  from  2  Sam.  vii.  and  1  Chron.  xvii.  The  whole  of 
these  chapters  should  be  carefully  considered.  We  select  only 
a  few  verses:  "Moreover  I^will  appoint  a  place  for  my  people 
Israel,  and  will  plant  them,  that  they  may  dwell  in  a  place  of 
their  own,  and  move  no  more,  neither  shall  the  children  of 
wickedness  afflict  them  any  more  as  beforetime;  also  the  Lord 
telleth  thee,  that  he  will  make  thee  a  house,  and  when  thy  days 
be  fulfilled,  &c. .  I  will  set  up  thy  seed  after  thee,  &c.,  and  I 
will  establish  his  kingdom,  &c.  ...  I  will  establish  the 
throne  of  his  kingdom  for  ever,  and  thine  house  and  thy 
kingdom  shall  be  established  for  ever  before  thee."  2  Sara, 
vii.  10,  11,  16;  1  Chron.  xvii.  9,  11,  12,  14.  How  then  could 
the  Evangelist  speak  of  a  return  from  Babylon?  To  have  done 
so,  would  have  done  violence  to  the  nation's  hopes  as  well  as  to 
the  terms  of  these  covenants. 

Some  authors,  however,  maintain  that  portions  of  all  the 
tribes  did  return  from  their  captivity,  and  that  therefore  the 
prophecies  relating  to  the  restoration  of  Israel,  may  be  con- 
sidered as  fulfilled.  It  is  not  the  purpose  at  this  time  to 
consider  these  prophecies.  The  subject  comes  up  in  connec- 
tion with  God's  covenants,  with  which  no  doubt  the  prophecies 
correspond.  It  is  undeniable,  however,  that  the  Evangelist 
makes  no  mention  of  any  restoration,  although  he  might  easily 
have  done  so  if  such  were  the  fact,  in  the  12th  verse — "And 
(after  the  return  from  Babylon,)  Zorobabel  begat,"  &c.,  or 
"Abiud  begat,"  kc,  as  the  fact  might  be.     Josephus  the  his- 


38 


NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 


torian  (Antiq.  book  ii.  chap.  5,  §  2)  evidently  supposed  that  the 
ten  tribes  remained  in  captivity  when  he  wrote;  and  the  same 
appears  to  have  been  the  belief  of  his  countrymen,  John  vii. 
35;  James  i.  1;  Acts  xxvi.  7.  Had  there  been  a  restoration 
m  the  sense  of  the  covenants,  and  consequently  of  the  pro- 
phecies also,  it  is  probable  the  Evangelist  would  have  noted  it 
as  he  did  the  captivity,  or  he  would  have  omitted  both,  espe- 
cially as  the  fact  of  a  captivity  had  no  necessary  connection 
with  the  pedigree  of  our  Lord,  but  only  with  the  covenants 
which  were  to  be  fulfilled  by  him.  If  we  had  no  means  of 
information  but  this  chapter,  we  might  infer  that  not  only 
fealathiel,  but  all  those  whose  names  follow  his,  were  becrotten 
m  captivity  at  Babylon.  ° 

Matt.   i.   16 "of  whom  was  born  Jesus"— i-  r^ 

iyvjvrfi-q  Iqaoo:^.  "    ' 

The  marginal  translation  of  'ft).^jrfivj  in  v.  20,  is  hegottpn, 
which  is  preferable  to  horn.  In  the  same  sense  should  the 
word  r^wcoiizuov  in  Luke  i.  35,  and  the  word  iyevur^O-/^,  in  this 
place  be  rendered.  In  the  previous  parts  of  this  chapter  the 
word  iyeuur^ae  is  used  in  the  causative  or  Hiphil  sense  (l^^-i-) 
Here  the  word,  without  change  of  tense,  is  converted  into  the 
passive  form,  without  any  intimation  in  the  context  of  any 
other  change  of  the  sense.  It  is  simply  a  change  of  construc- 
tion made  necessary  by  the  divine  generation  of  Jesus,  which 
the  Evangelist  proceeds  immediately  to  explain. 

Had  not  our  Lord  been  divine  as  well  as  human,  no  chancre 
of  phraseology  would  have  been  necessary.  The  evangelfst 
would  have  continued  ho(T/;(r  Se  eyzwr^az  zov  Ir^aouv  rov  Xzyo'iJ.z).ov 
Xpcazov,  and  this  would  have  been  in  accordance  with  the 
Jewish  notion  of  the  promised  Messiah,  and  with  the  heresy 
of  Cerinthus.  The  nation  believed  that  the  promised  Chri<^t 
would  be  a  mere  man,  who,  by  God's  favour  and  blessino-, 
would  accomplish  their  deliverance.  The  Evangelist  here 
corrects  that  mistake.  Yet  it  was  necessary  that  jSus  should 
be  the  son  of  Joseph  as  well  as  the  son  of  God,  Mark  i.  1,  in 
the  proper  and  strict  sense  of  the  word.  If  not,  the  table  of 
pedigree  was  superfluous— in  fact,  would  prove  nothing,  by 
reason  of  its  failure  to  connect  Jesus  with  the  ancestry  of 
Joseph.  He  was,  therefore,  not  merely  born  of  Mary,  but 
begotten  of  her  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  yet  made  really  and  truly 
the  son  of  Joseph  by  divine  covenant,  for  the  transaction  re- 
corded m  verses  20  and  21  amounts  to  a  covenant  between  God 
and  Joseph.  As  the  creator  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  of  David 
and  Abraham,  it  was  not  possible  that  he  should  filiate  himself 
to  either  in  any  other   way.     He  took   to  himself  the  body 


GENEALOGY   OF   JESUS.  39 

•which  was  born  of  Mary,*  that  is,  his  Divine  power  was  active 
in  the  generation  or  formation  of  that  body,  which,  in  the 
execution  of  the  covenant,  he  committed  for  a  time  to  their 
joint  care  and  custody;  each  performing  in  the  order  of  nature 
their  appropriate  offices.  Said  the  angel  to  Mary,  Luke  i.  35, 
The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the 
Highest  shall  overshadow  thee,  and  therefore  shall  that  Holy 
(being)  which  shall  be  (jsppco/isvou)  begotten  of  theef  be  called 
the  Son  of  God — that  is,  he  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God, 
not  because  he  was  born  of  Mary,  but  because  he  was  begotten 
by  God  the  Holy  Ghost.     See  Mark  i.  1. 

According  to  this  view,  the  word  ysvvr^ai^  in  verse  18,  or 
rather  yeuean;,  which  is  the  true  reading,  should  be  rendered 
generation.  This  sense  accords  with  the  following  verses, 
20 — 23.  The  Evangelist  is  not  speaking  in  this  place  of  the 
birth  of  Jesus.  Indeed,  he  nowhere  records  the  time  and 
circumstances  of  his  birth,  as  Luke  does,  but  merely  adverts 
to  the  fact  and  place  of  his  birth,  in  the  first  verse  of  the 
second  chapter,  which  (as  we  may  infer  from  chapter  i.  25) 
did  not  occur  till  some  time  after  the  events  recorded  in 
verses  18 — 21. 

It  may  be  added,  that  Beza  translates  this  word  in  Matt.  i.  16, 
20,  and  in  John  iii.  3,  6,  7,  by  gigno,  not  nascor.  See  also 
Sebast.  Schmidt's  translation. 

Matt.  i.  23.    "And   they  shall   call   his   name   Emman- 
uel," &c. 

The  framework  of  this  chapter  rests,  so  to  speak,  upon  the 
names  Jesus  (Saviour,  verse  22,)  Immanuel  (God  with  us,) 
and  the  appellative  descriptions,  the  son  of  David  (the  heir  or 
seed  of  the  covenant  of  the  kingdom,  Luke  i.  31 — 32,)  the  son 
of  Abraham  (the  heir  of  the  world,  Romans  iv.  13,  or  the 
seed  in  whom  all  nations  should  be  blessed,  Galatians  iii.  8.) 
The  chief  object  of  the  Evangelist  was,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
gospel,  to  propound  or  set  forth  Jesus,  the  great  subject  of 
the  gospel,  in  these  four  relations.     The  whole  Bible  is  little, 

*  "Quneritur  num  massa,  ex  qua  Christus  progenitus  est,  in  utero  Marise  k 
peccato  fuerit  prseservata  an  purificata,  aut  noviter  creata,"  &c.  (Walchii 
Mis.  Sac.)  We  regard  all  such  inquiries  as  irreverent.  We  can  know  nothing 
more  about  God's  mysterious  ways  and  workings  than  the  Scriptures  teach  us. 
The  incarnation  was  an  act  of  creative  power ;  above  the  order  of  nature,  and 
out  of  the  sphere  of  natural  causes.  Who  can  explain  to  us  how  the  human 
soul  and  the  divine  nature  of  our  Lord  became  incarnate  a  second  time  in  the 
dead  body  of  Jesus  in  the  tomb  of  Joseph !  Such  acts  of  divine  power  are  too 
wonderful  for  us  to  explain.  We  should  receive  them  as  facts,  as  we  do  the 
fact  of  creation,  Hebrews  xi.  3. 

f  These  words,  "of  thee,"  are  supplied  by  the  translators,  though  they  do 
not  appear  to  be  an  addition  to  the  text,  even  in  the  earliest  edition.   (1011.) 


40  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 

if  anything,  more  than  an  expansion  of  the  things  involved  in 
these  relations. 

The  word  Immanuel  occurs  in  the  New  Testament  only  in 
this  place.  We  infer,  from  the  manner  in  which  the  Evan- 
gelist employs  the  word,  and  the  event  with  which  he  connects 
it,  that  it  is  a  name  assumed  to  denote  the  incarnate  relation 
of  Jehovah  to  his  people.  Before  the  incarnation,  Jehovah  was 
Eloah,  or  Elohim,  to  the  seed  of  Israel,  see  1  Kings  xviii.  21, 
39,  (Hebrew  text,)  a  distinction,  however,  which  Elias  Hutter, 
in  his  Hebrew  version  of  the  New  Testament,  and  his  revisers, 
have  not  observed,  as  perhaps  they  ought  to  have  done  in 
rendering  Hebrews  xi.  16.  By  incarnation,  Jehovah  assumed 
a  new  relation  to  the  fallen  race  of  man,  viz.  that  contem- 
plated in  the  covenant  of  redemption.  In  this  new  relation 
he  became  the  seed  of  David,  the  heir  of  the  throne  of  David, 
Acts  ii.  31 ;  the  heir  of  the  world,  Dan.  vii.  14.  As  Jehovah 
and  Creator,  he  is  the  Lord  of  the  universe,  as  Son  of  man, 
(Ben  Adam  Ps.  viii.)  he  is  the  Lord  of  the  world,  Deut.  x.  14; 
Psalm  xxiv.  1 ;  1  Cor.  x.  26,  28.  As  Immanuel,  he  has  a 
land*  especially  his  own,  Ezek.  xxxviii.  16 — 21;  having  a 
defined  length  and  breadth.  It  is  the  land  which  Isaiah  pro- 
phesied would  be  overrun  by  the  king  of  Assyria,  Isa.  viii.  8. 
He  has  a  people  also  as  well  as  a  kingdom  of  defined  limits, 
John  i.  11.  EIq  to.  lota  rjXde  xai  ol  loiot  ahxhv  oh  napkla^ov. 
This  land  is  the  land  given  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  by  cove- 
nant, Genesis  xiii.  14,  15;  xii.  7.  Of  this  covenant  the 
Evangelist  had  already  reminded  his  readers,  in  the  first  verse 
of  the  gospel,  in  a  manner  well  calculated  to  suggest  to  an 
intelligent  Jew  of  his  own  day,  how  great  were  the  sin  and 
folly  of  their  rulers  in  rejecting  Jesus,  in  whom  alone,  any  of 
the  blessings  of  this  covenant  could  be  fulfilled. 

We  sometimes  hear  devout  persons  invoke  God's  blessing 
on  their  country,  in  terms  expressive  of  the  relation  which 
the  Lord  (Jehovah)  assumed  by  his  incarnation  to  the  elect 
Israel  and  the  land  especially  included  in  the  Abrahamic 
covenant — "Make  this  land"  (meaning  their  own  country,) 
"  Immanuel's  land,"  or  similar  expressions.  We  doubt  not 
that  such  petitions,  devoutly  uttered,  may  be  answered,  but  not 
according  to  the  letter,  Isaiah  viii.  8. 

The  Evangelist  quotes  in  this  place,  Isaiah  vii.  14,  where  the 
name  first  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament.     It  occurs   also    in 

*  It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  property  in  the  soil  of  Canaan,  God  expressly 
reserved  to  himself.  "  The  land  shall  not.  be  sold  for  ever :  for  the  land  is  mine: 
Ye  are  strangers  and  sojourners  icilh  me."  Leviticus  xxv.  23.  That  is,  the 
Israelites  were  to  be  mere  occupants,  not  the  proprietors  of  the  land.  Comp. 
John  i.  11.     Original  Gi-eek. 


GENEALOGY   OF   JESUS.  41 

Isaiah  viii.  8,  10.  The  LXX.  translate  it  in  both  these  phices 
fizd'  qixtov  b  Oso^.  So  does  John  David  Michaelis.  The  Vulgate, 
Sebast.  Schmidt,  Castalio,  Diodati,  and  the  authorized  English 
Version,  transfer  the  word  in  viii.  8,  as  a  proper  name,  and 
translate  it  in  the  tenth  verse.  Luther,  Stier,  and  Theilc  trans- 
late the  tenth  verse,  denn  hier  ist  Immanuel,  because  Immanuel 
is  here.  Regarded  as  a  proper  name,  and  we  maj  so  regard 
it  in  all  these  places,  the  last  clause  of  the  tenth  verse  may  be 
shortly  expressed,  "because  of  Immanuel,"  and  the  meaning 
of  the  whole  verse  would  be,  The  counsel  of  the  confederated 
enemies  of  Immanuel's  land,  the  land  of  the  covenant,  should 
come  to  naught,  and  their  word  should  not  stand  because  of 
Immanuel.  It  is  his  land.  See  Glassius  Phil.  Sac.  p,  1066,  7, 
and  David  Martin's  (French  version)  Comm.  on  Isaiah  viii.  8. 
But  the  full  explanation  of  this  name  is  given  by  the  Evangelist, 
John  i.  1—14. 

Matt.  i.  24.  "  Then  Joseph  being  raised  from  sleep  did  as 
the  angel  of  the  Lord  had  bidden  him,"  &c. 

If  we  were  to  inquire,  "  How  could  Christ,  being  the  Son  of 
God,  become  man?"  it  migJit  be  answered:  By  his  creating  for 
himself  a  true  body  and  a  reasonable  soul,  as  he  did  for  Adam, 
our  first  parent,  and  by  then  uniting  to  it  his  divine  nature,  so 
as  to  form  one  person.  But  had  he  adopted  this  method,  he 
Avould  not  have  been  of  our  race,  nor  could  he  have  been  the 
promised  seed  of  the  woman,  whose  office  it  would  be  to  crush 
the  serpent's  head.  If  we  inquire  again,  "  How  did  Christ, 
being  the  Son  of  God,  become  man?"  it  might  be  answered,  by 
his  taking  to  himself  a  true  body  and  a  reasonable  soul,  in  the 
race  of  man,  and  entering  into  the  family  of  man,  according  to 
the  order  of  nature  which  he  himself  had  established.  In  this 
way,  he  did  become  a  member  of  the  human  family,  and  the 
promised  seed  of  the  woman.  But  if  we  inquire  again,  "  How 
could  Christ,  being  the  Son  of  God,  become  the  son  of  Joseph  ?" 
it  may  be  answered: — in  the  same  way  that  he  could  become 
the  son  of  David,  or  the  son  of  Abraham,  Matt.  i.  1.  The 
difficulty  in  either  case  is  precisely  that  Avith  which  our  Lord 
pressed  the  Pharisees,  Matt.  xxii.  42,  45,  when  he  inquired  of 
them,  "What  think  ye  of  Christ?  Whose  son  is  he?"  In 
Rev.  xxii.  16,  he  says  of  himself,  "I  am  the  root  of  David," 
that  is,  David  as  truly  sprung  from  me  as  the  tree  grows  up 
from  its  root.  He  adds,  "I  am  the  offspring  of  David,"  that 
is,  I  sprung  from  David  as  truly  as  the  branch  shoots  off  from 
the  trunk  of  a  tree.  But  how  can  this  be?  He  was  David's 
Lord,  because  he  created  him.  He  was  David's  son,  because 
he  graciously  covenanted  Avith  David  that  he  would  take  to 
himself  the  human  nature  in  his  race.  He  was  Joseph's  son, 
6 


42  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

because  he  selected  the  family  of  Joseph  as  that  in  which  he 
would  fulfil  his  covenant  with  David  and  Abraham.  He  was  as 
truly,  and  in  the  same  sense,  the  son  of  Joseph,  as  he  was  of 
David  or  Abraham.  The  cause  or  reason  of  his  being  the  son 
of  either  was  his  sovereign  purpose  and  promise  to  put  himself 
in  that  relation.  It  may  be  objected  that  by  son,  Matt.  i.  1, 
we  must  understand  descendant,  and  thus  understood,  we  may 
with  strict  accuracy  say,  he  descended  from  Abraham  and 
David  through  Mary,  not  through  Joseph.  But  the  word 
descendant  creates  the  same  difficulties  as  the  word  son,  under- 
stood in  the  sense  of  an  immediate  descendant.  For,  how,  we  may 
inquire  as  before,  could  Christ,  being  the  Son  of  God,  become 
a  descendant  of  David,  or  of  Abraham,  or  of  Adam,  or  of  Eve, 
or  of  Mary  ?  The  answer  must  be  the  same  as  that  already 
given.  It  may  be  objected  again,  that  we  find  express  cove- 
nants with  Abraham  and  Davi^l  to  this  intent,  but  none  of  like 
nature  or  import  with  Joseph.  To  this  objection  we  reply,  the 
transaction  with  Joseph  recorded  in  verses  20,  21,  and  24, 
amounts  to  a  covenant.  "Joseph  did  as  the  angel  of  the  Lord 
had  bidden  him."     See  chap.  ii.  13,  14,  19,  20—23. 

Matt.  r.  18 — 25.  From  what  has  been  said  it  sufficiently 
appears  that  these  verses  really  form  a  part  of  the  table  of 
pedigree.  The  Evangelist  had  shown  the  descent  from  Abraham 
to  Joseph,  the  husband  of  Mary ;  naming  the  father  who  begat 
and  the  son  begotten.  In  the  16th  verse,  he  changes  the 
phraseology.  He  says  not  that  Joseph  begat  Jesus,  but  simply 
that  Joseph  was  the  husband  of  Mary,  of  whom  Jesus  was 
begotten.  Here,  then,  is  an  omission  which  must  be  supplied. 
Had  the  table  stopped  here,  the  reader  might  have  inquired  who 
begat  Jesus  ?  Anticipating  this  inquiry,  the  Evangelist  answers, 
"the  Holy  Ghost."  Again  it  might  be  inquired,  hoAV  could 
that  be  known?  This  question,  also,  is  anticipated,  and  the 
answer  given,  "by  divine  revelation."  The  Evangelist  then 
proceeds  to  show  that  such  a  revelation  was  made  to  Joseph ; 
the  manner  in  which  it  was  made ;  and  the  occasion  which  led 
to  it.  He  states  the  facts  circumstantially  as  they  occurred, 
doubtless  by  inspiration,  and  not  upon  information  received 
either  directly  or  at  second  hand  from  Joseph.  By  this  method, 
we  are  taught  incidentally  several  particulars  of  great  interest 
and  importance,  which  would  have  been  excluded  by  a  concise 
statement  of  the  simple  fact  of  the  generation  of  the  human 
person  of  the  Lord  Jesus  by  the  Holy  Spirit — r.vz'j^a  oe  (Xjtov 
eyevu7j(T£  zov  '  Jvjaouu. 

Thus  we  learn,  for  example,  that  his  personal  name  (Jesus) 
was  divinely  appointed,  and  that  Joseph  was  commanded  to 
call  him  by  that  name,  Matt.  i.  21,  as  Mary  previously  had 


GENEALOGY   OF   JESUS.  43 

been,  Luke  i.  31.  The  obedience  of  Joseph  to  this,  as  to  other 
commands,  gave  to  the  proceeding,  as  has  been  suggested,  the 
form  of  a  synallagmatic  transaction,  and  the  effect  of  a  cove- 
nant. In  this  way,  too,  the  Evangelist  shows  how  Isa.  vii. 
14,  which  predicts  the  incarnation,  was  fulfilled — a  prophecy 
quite  indefinite  in  its  terms,  but  made  precise  by  the  revelation 
of  the  angel  to  Joseph.  The  prophet  says,  "Behold,  a  virgin 
shall  conceive,"  &c. ;  but  by  what  power,  he  does  not  say  ;  and 
his  words  might  naturally  suggest  the  inquiry  of  Mary,  Luke 
i.  34,  35. 

The  Vulgate  translates  verse  18,  Christi  autem  r/eneratio  sic 
erat.  Erasmus  preferred  this  reading,  and  Mill  inclined  to  it ; 
but  Whitby  contended  for  the  tcxtus  receptus.  As  the  object 
of  the  Evangelist  was  to  trace  the  descent  of  the  royal  office  to 
Jesus,  and  show  his  right  to  it  as  the  Christ  or  Messiah,  we  see 
a  reason  why  he  should  use  that  designation.  But  as  that  was 
his  title,  not  his  personal  name,  it  was  proper,  in  this  verse,  to 
designate  him  by  his  personal  name  rather  than  by  his  title; 
yet  not  improper  to  add  the  title,  especially  as  he  had  already 
done  so  in  the  16th  verse  after  a  b  ?,£YOfj.svo^.  The  last  word 
in  the  25th  verse  may  be  regarded  as  a  resuming  of  the  narra- 
tive at  verse  16. 

Matt.  ii.  The  first  chapter  of  this  gospel — it  has  been 
suggested — begins  with  the  proposition  of  the  entire  book. 
The  first  proof  of  it  is  the  genealogy  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  This 
proof  involved  the  mystery  of  the  incarnation,  which,  though 
taught  in  the  Old  Testament,  Ps.  ex.,  was  not  understood  by 
the  Pharisees,  Matt.  xxii.  41,  46,  and  excluded  from  the  popular 
theology.  The  Evangelist,  therefore,  shows  how  he  was  the 
Son  of  God,  and  also  the  son  of  Joseph,  and  through  him  the 
heir  of  David's  throne  by  descent.  The  Evangelist  also  con- 
nects with  the  table  of  genealogy,  as  we  have  seen,  the  two 
great  national  covenants,  the  Abrahamic  and  Davidic,  in  which 
all  the  blessings  the  nation  hoped  for  or  could  expect  were 
included. 

To  the  Jewish  mind  no  subject  more  interesting  or  important 
could  be  presented,  and  to  those  Jews  who  still  believed  that 
Jesus  was  a  deceiver,  Matt,  xxvii.  63,  the  addition  of  the  title 
Christ  to  his  name,  thereby  afiirming  that  he  was  in  truth  the 
promised  Messiah,  and  the  further  additions,  "  son  of  David," 
• "  son  of  Abraham,"  thereby  affirming  that  he  was  that  son,  or 
descendant  of  those  patriarchs,  in  whom  the  great  and  glorious 
covenants  God  made  with  them  were  to  be  fulfilled,  must  have 
been  extremely  offensive. 

In  the  second  chapter  the  Evangelist  proceeds  to  the  second 
proof  of  his  proposition,  which  may  be  called  the  testimony  of 


44  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 

Hei'od.  The  logical  connection  would  be  more  obvious  if  the 
Evangelist  had  marked  the  transition  from  his  first  to  the  second 
proof  somewhat  after  this  method : 

"  But  ye  Jews,  who  still  reject  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  and  still 
persist  in  saying  that  the  Messiah  has  not  yet  appeared,  listen 
to  the  testimony  of  Herod  the  Great,  one  of  your  own  kings, 
the  close  of  whose  reign  some  of  you  are  old  enough  to  remem- 
ber. Herod,  indeed,  never  saw  this  Jesus,  whose  history  I  am 
writing,  and  knew  not  his  person,  yet  he  firmly  believed  that 
the  promised  Messiah  was  born  during  his  reign,  as  is  proved 
by  the  well-remembered  visit  of  the  wise  men  from  the  East, 
and  the  proceedings  of  Herod  thereupon." 

Such,  it  is  suggested,  is  the  connection  or  undercurrent  of 
thought;  and  thus  regarded,  the  facts  recorded  in  this  chapter 
strongly  support  the  leading  proposition  of  the  book.  As  an 
argument,  it  was  peculiarly  suited  to  impress  the  Jews  of  that 
day.  The  atrocities  of  Herod  were  well  remembered,  and  some 
who  suffered  by  them  were,  no  doubt,  alive  when  this  gospel 
was  written,  which  was  probably  about  eight  years  after  the 
resurrection  of  Christ.  Herod  was  an  unscrupulous  and  cruel 
prince,  as  his  conduct  proved ;  but  did  he  act  upon  insufficient 
grounds,  or  was  he  moved  by  a  vain  fear  ?  The  grounds  upon 
which  he  acted  were  public  facts — the  public  appearance  of  the 
Magi — their  public  inquiry  after  the  new-born  king,  &c.  The 
force  of  the  argument  depends  on  the  weight  due  to  the  acts  of 
such  a  government  as  Herod's.  The  argument  is  not  in  itself 
absolutely  conclusive,  because  Herod,  with  all  the  means  of 
information  his  power  could  command,  might  have  been  mis- 
taken ;  yet,  taken  in  connection  with  the  other  proofs,  it 
deserved  the  serious  consideration  of  the  Jews  of  that  day.* 

Matt.  ii.  2.  "Where  is  he  that  is  born  king  of  the  Jews," 
or  rather  where  is  the  (6  xzydztQ  ^aadeuz)  horn  king  of  the  Jews, 
q.  d.  legitimus  et  naturalis  ?  Herodes  enim  factitius  tantum 
erat  et  a  Romanis  datus,  &c.     Hardy's  N.  T. 

This  question  of  the  wise  men  taxed  Herod's  dynasty  with 
usurpation,  and  rightly.  The  legitimate  kings  of  that  country 
were  of  David's  race.  They  were  kings  jure  divino,  because 
kings  by  force  of  God's  covenant  with  that  patriarch,  Ps.  cxxxii. 
11;  Acts  ii.  30;  2  Sam.  vii.  12—16;  1  Chron.  xvii.     The  last 

*  We  may  quote  in  this  connection  a  passage  from  Macrobius  touching  the 
acts  of  Herod.  Writing  of  Augustus,  lib.  2,  cap.  4,  he  says:  "Cum  audisset 
inter  puero.s,  quos  in  Syria  Herodes  rex  JudsBorum  infra  bimatum  jussit 
interfici,  filiuiu  quoque  ejus  occisum ;  ait,  Melius  est  Herodis  porcum  esse 
quam  filium."  If  Augustus  said  this  in  Greek — and  some  have  conjectured 
he  did — the  wit  consisted  probably  in  a  play  upon  the  words,  tic,  (swine)  and 
ws/f  or  woe,  (son.)  The  passage  is  important  chiefly  as  a  confirmation  of  the  fact 
related  by  the  evangelist. 


GOVERNMENT    FOR   THE    TRIBES.  45 

of  these  was  Jedionias,  Matt.  i.  11,  12.  In  his  days  the  taber- 
nacle of  David  fell,  Acts.  xv.  16.  For  God  had  then  executed 
the  threatening  made  by  the  mouth  of  the  prophet  Amos,  ix. 
9,  11,  by  sifting  the  house  of  Israel  among  all  nations,  as  corn 
is  sifted  in  a  sieve.     Let  us  open  this  matter  a  little. 

The  form  of  government  appointed  for  the  tribes  of  Israel, 
and  for  the  land  God  gave  them,  was,  from  the  time  of  their 
exodus  from  Egypt,  purely  theocratical ;  God  claimed  for  himself 
the  prerogatives  of  an  absolute  king  over  them,  and  this  appears 
even  by  the  names  the  people  themselves  gave  him.  They  called 
him  their  king,  1  Sam.  xii.  12;  Jer.  li.  57;  Ps.  cxlix.  2,  xlviii. 
2;  Hos.  xiii.  10;  Matt.  v.  35;  their  Elohim,  Deut.  xxvi.  17,  a 
name  applied  to  princes,  judges,  and  kings,  to  denote  their 
peculiar  relations  and  powers,  and  to  God  also,  not  only  on 
account  of  the  worship  due  him,  but  as  their  king  and  protector. 
See  Deut.  v.  32;  Judges  viii.  22,  23;  Exod.  xix.  4,  5,  6.  As 
an  earthly  king  resides  in  his  palace  among  his  people,  gives 
his  commands,  punishes  the  transgressors  of  his  laws,  adminis- 
ters justice,  and  provides  in  various  ways  for  the  well-being  of 
his  empire ;  so  God  dwelt  in  the  tabernacle  by  the  symbol  of 
his  glorious  presence  above  the  ark,  where  the  cherubim,  with 
their  outstretched  wings,  exhibited,  as  it  were,  the  royal  throne 
on  which  the  Shekinah,  or  cloud  glittering  with  fire,  rested. 
As  a  king  has  his  ministers  of  government,  so  Moses,  before 
the  institution  of  the  ceremonial  law,  was  God's  minister,  and 
the  mediator  between  him  and  the  people,  Exod.  xx.  19 ;  Deut. 
V.  27  ;  Gal.  iii.  19.  After  the  institution  of  the  law,  it  was  the 
office  of  Aaron,  the  chief-priest,  as  God's  minister,  to  approach 
his  throne,  though  but  once  only  in  a  year,  while  the  people 
were  excluded  even  from  the  sight  of  it,  Heb.  ix.  7 ;  Exod. 
XXX.  10;  Lev.  xvi.  2.  No  treaties  could  be  formed  with  the 
nations,  nor  wars  waged,  without  the  command  of  God. 

When  the  people  desired  Gideon  to  be  their  king,  and  offered 
to  make  the  royal  office  hereditary  in  his  family,  he  promptly 
and  resolutely  refused  the  offer,  saying,  "I  will  not  rule  over 
you,  neither  shall  my  son  rule  over  you.  The  Lord  shall  rule 
over  you."  Judges  viii.  22,  23. 

While  the  theocracy  remained  unchanged  from  its  original 
institution,  the  commonwealth  of  Israel  prospered.  Their  de- 
mand of  a  king  in  the  days  of  Samuel  was  virtually  a  rejection 
of  Jehovah  as  their  king,  and  the  commencement  of  their 
downfall,  1  Sam.  viii.  5,  7.  For  although  in  the  times  of  David 
and  Solomon  the  nation  seemed  more  prosperous  than  ever 
before,  yet  the  people  were  really  in  revolt.  It  was  then  that 
idolatry  was  introduced  from  the  surrounding  nations.  At  the 
close  of  Solomon's  reign,  about  one  hundred  and  twenty  years 


46  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

after  the  change,  the  ten  tribes  revolted  from  the  throne  of 
David.  This  was  a  great  calamity,  especially  to  the  revolt- 
ing tribes.  Very  few  of  Solomon's  successors  walked  in 
the  ways  of  the  Lord,  and  scarcely  any  one  of  the  kings  of 
Israel.  So  that  what  Moses  had  intimated,  if  not  clearly  fore- 
told, was  abundantly  fulfilled  in  their  subsequent  history,  Deut. 
xvii.  14,  20;  1  Sam.  viii.  11 — 22.  The  Jews  themselves,  or  at 
least  some  of  the  most  devout  among  them,  ascribe  the  evils 
which  befell  their  nation  to  their  kings.  Saul  having  forfeited 
the  divine  favour,  fell  on  Mount  Gilboa;  David,  by  his  sin, 
caused  a  plague;  Ahab's  sins  provoked  Divine  judgment; 
Zedekiah  caused  the  desolation  of  the  sanctuary,  &c. 

Yet  God  did  not  then  absolutely  withdraw  the  theocracy  from 
all  Israel  for  their  sin  in  demanding  a  king.  Nor  did  he  when 
he  rejected  Saul,  1  Sam.  xv.  28,  restore  the  former  regime  under 
judges,  but,  (i-sbp,  1  Sam.  xvi.  1,  xiii.  14,)  of  his  oivn  accord, 
that  is,  without  a  fresh  demand  from  the  people,  he  chose  David, 
and  made  him  his  minister,  as  Moses  and  the  judges  were, 
though  for  different  ends,  and  not  only,  but  graciously  con- 
descended to  make  with  him  a  covenant,  in  the  execution  of 
which  he  would  not  only  restore  the  theocracy,  but  establish  it 
in  a  higher  and  much  more  glorious  form,  Acts  ii.  30;  Ps. 
cxxxii.  11.  This  was  the  covenant  of  the  kingdom  under 
which  the  Lord  himself  became  incarnate  as  king  of  Israel  in 
the  family  of  Joseph,  to  whom  the  right  of  the  earthly  king- 
dom had  been  transmitted  by  descent  from  David. 

We  conclude,  then,  that  the  theocracy  continued  from  its 
establishment,  at  the  exodus  from  Egypt,  until  the  birth  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,  even  during  the  captivity,  although  in  a  modified 
form.  The  ten  tribes,  by  their  revolt  from  the  house  of  David, 
renounced  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  with  that  patriarch, 
1  Kings  xii.  16,  and  the  special  guardianship  of  Jehovah  as  their 
king,  as  did  the  two  tribes  also  when  they  denied  the  Holy  One 
and  the  Just,  Acts.  iii.  14,  and  before  Pilate  acknowledged 
Cnesar  as  their  only  king,  John  xix.  15.  Then  indeed  the 
theocracy  was  entirely  withdrawn  from  all  the  tribes  of  Israel, 
nor  will  it  be  restored  until  the  times  of  the  Gentiles  shall  be 
fulfilled,  Luke  xxi.  24,  and  Israel  shall  be  restored  to  the  land 
of  the  covenant,  and  ungodliness  be  turned  from  them,  Ps.  ex. 
8;  Matt,  xxiii.  39;  Rom.  xi.  25,  26.  With  this  great  event 
God  has  inseparably  connected  the  restoration  of  the  world 
itself  to  its  lost  place  in  the  holy  creation.  The  kingdom  of 
the  heavens,  which,  as  we  have  reason  to  believe,  embraces 
innumerable  worlds  into  which'  God  has  not  permitted  sin  to 
enter,  will  then  come  nigh  again  to  this  world,  and  be  out- 


DIVINE    INTERPOSITION    ON    BEHALF   OF   JESUS.  47 

wardly  established  over  a  people  prepared  perfectly  to  obey  its 
laws  and  enjoy  its  blessings. 

We  may  note  in  conclusion,  that  the  Evangelist  recognizes 
Herod  as  king  of  the  Jews  de  facto.  Yet  he  was  not  such  de 
jure,  being  an  Ascalonite  by  birth,  and  disqualified  for  the 
office  he  exercised  even  by  the  law  of  Moses,  Deut.  xvii.  15, 
not  to  mention  the  covenant  with  David,  by  which  only  the 
right  to  the  kingdom  could  be  conferred,  Luke  i.  32,  33.  Our 
publicists  may  find  here  an  example  of,  if  not  an  authority  for, 
the  distinction  they  make  between  governments  de  jure  and  de 
facto.  The  mutations  of  earthly  sovereignties  show  that  there 
are  none  de  jure  divino,  and  will  not  be  till  the  vision  of  the 
Psalmist  shall  be  fulfilled,  Ps.  xlvii.  6,  7,  and  the  Lord  himself 
shall  be  king  of  Israel  and  king  of  the  whole  earth,  and  the 
theocracy  be  restored  to  the  world,  redeemed  and  purified  from 
sin  and  every  pollution. 

Matt.  ii.  12,  13.  We  observe  here  that  two  extraordinary 
Divine  interpositions  occurred  in  order  to  save  the  infant  Jesus 
from  the  cruelty  of  Herod,  viz.  the  warning  to  the  wise  men 
not  to  return  to  Herod,  and  the  warning  to  Joseph  to  flee  to 
Egypt  by  night.  They  were  special  providences,  not  to  say 
miracles,  designed  to  avoid  the  necessity,  if  we  may  so  say,  of 
miracles  or  other  extraordinary  means,  which  would  be  more 
open  to  public  observation.  Human  or  natural  means  of  pro- 
tection or  escape  were  preferred  to  extraordinary  or  miraculous, 
in  order  that  the  passing  of  the  Lord  Jesus  from  infancy  to 
manhood,  and  even  through  his  public  ministry,  might  be,  in 
all  respects,  like  that  of  other  men,  m  more  humano,  as  nearly 
as  possible. 

It  is  observable  that  our  Lord,  after  he  entered  publicly  on 
his  ministry,  almost  always  withdrew  from  approaching  danger, 
John  vii.  1,  x.  40;  Matt.  xii.  15;  John  xi.  64;  yet  on  some 
occasions  he  escaped  danger  by  extraordinary  means,  Luke  iv. 
29,  30,  and  on  other  occasions  he  gave  his  word  a  miraculous 
power  over  the  minds  of  his  enemies,  John  vii.  32,  44,  45,  46. 
At  last,  however,  he  surrendered  himself  voluntarily,  John 
xviii.  8,  yet  not  without  showing  that  he  had  power  by  his  mere 
word  to  protect  himself,  John  xviii.  6.  The  Evangelist  ascribes 
the  protection  of  his  disciples,  during  the  hour  and  power  of 
darkness,  Luke  xxii.  53,  simply  to  the  power  of  his  word,  John 
xviii.  8,  9.  But  it  is  unnecessary  to  labour  this  point.  It  was 
impossible  that  he  should  die  except  in  the  appointed  way,  Luke 
xiii.  31,  33,  and  thus  Satan  reasoned  in  the  temptation.  Matt. 
iv.  6.  He  represents  himself  as  laying  down  his  life  that  he 
might  take  it  again,  John  x.  17,  18,  xix.  11 ;  Matt.  xxvi. 
53,  54. 


48  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 

Why,  then,  did  he  not  always  give  his  words  the  power  to 
deter  and  awe  his  enemies  ?  Or,  why  did  he  not  always  give 
them  the  power  to  persuade?  Why  not  the  power  to  pros- 
trate? Or  if  not,  why  did  he  not  always  protect  himself  by 
some  miraculous  means,  as  he  did  on  some  occasions,  but 
rather  resort  to  just  such  as  a  mere  man  would  use  to  avoid 
dangers  too  great  to  be  overcome. 

The  answer  is  plain.  The  Messiah  of  prophecy  was  not  to 
resort  to  miracles  for  self-preservation.  His  miracles  were  to  be 
wrought  in  relief  of  the  lame,  the  deaf,  the  blind,  the  infirm,  the 
sick — not  for  himself.  Matt.  xi.  5.  As  the  Son  of  man  he  multi- 
plied bread  to  feed  the  people,  not  to  feed  himself.  Matt.  iv.  3,  4. 
It  is  remarkable  that  the  Evangelists  never  represent  him  as 
partaking  with  the  people  of  the  products  of  his  miraculous 
power.  He  was  not  to  provide  for  himself  by  miraculous 
means  a  house  or  shelter,  or  the  ordinary  comforts  of  life. 
Matt.  viii.  20 ;  see  Matt.  xii.  14 — 20  ;  Isa.  xlii.  1. 

This  characteristic  of  the  Saviour's  life  is  prominent  from 
the  beginning  to  the  end  of  it.  As  an  infant  he  has  the 
feebleness  of  infancy.  During  this  period  he  provides  for 
himself  human  parental  care.  The  parents  flee  with  him  to 
avoid  approaching  dangers.  The  only  or  chief  diiference 
between  this  and  other  incidents  is,  that  Joseph  did  not 
discover  the  danger  by  his  own  sagacity.  He  was  divinely 
warned.  Yet  this  warning  was  a  secret  intimation  of  which 
others  had  no  knowledge.  The  wise  men  were  diverted  from 
their  purpose  to  return  to  Jerusalem  in  the  same  way.  The 
command  of  God  absolved  them  from  their  promise  to  Herod, 
if  they  made  one,  and  they  were  soon  beyond  the  bounds 
of  Judea.  Nor  do  we  know  that  they  ever  returned.  Yet 
divine  power  truly  resided  in  the  person  of'  the  Saviour, 
continually,  from  his  birth,  until  he  yielded  up  his  human 
spirit  on  the  cross.  At  twelve  years  of  age,  he  manifested 
extraordinary,  but  not  the  superhuman  wisdom  he  really 
possessed,  Luke  ii.  42,  43.  His  physical  and  mental  powers  he 
developed  gradually  from  childhood  to  manhood.  Luke  ii.  52. 
And  after  he  entered  on  his  ministry  he  put  forth  his  divine 
power,  and  manifested  the  divine  nature  which  was  in  him, 
according  to  divinely  appointed  measures,  without  ostentation 
or  display,  Matt.  xii.  19;  not  for  the  purpose  of  showing,  that 
as  a  man  he  was  unlike  others  (except  in  this,  that  he  bore  all 
the  predicted  marks  and  characteristics  of  Messiah,)  John 
XV.  24 — not  to  show  that  his  manhood  already  partook  of  the 
divine  nature,  but  that  the  divine  nature  was  truly  incarnate  in 
his  humanity. 


Herod's  massacre  of  the  children.  49 

Matt.  ii.  18,  and  Jer.  xxxi.  15.  "A  voice  was  heard  in 
Rama,"  &c.  • 

The  subject  of  this  chapter  of  Jeremiah,  from  which  the 
Evangelist  quotes,  is  the  captivity  of  the  ten  tribes,  and  their 
restoration.  Rachel,  the  wife  of  Jacob,  is  exhibited  as 
lamenting  the  loss  of  her  children.  She  was  buried  in  the 
way  to  Ephrata,  which  is  Bethlehem,  Gen.  xxxv.  19;  xlviii.  7. 
Rama  was  several  miles  distant  from  Bethlehem,  but  both 
within  the  tribe  of  Benjamin.  Rachel  was  the  mother  of 
Joseph  and  Benjamin;  and  Ephraim,  who  is  specially  men- 
tioned in  the  6th,  9th,  18th,  and  20th  verses,  was  the  younger 
son  of  Joseph,  Gen.  xlviii.  18,  but  is  here  named  as  the  head  of 
the  ten  tribes,  which  had  been  carried  into  captivity  (circ.  721 
B.  c. ;  2  Kings  xvii.  6;  xviii.  10)  a  century  or  more  before  this 
prophecy  was  uttered-  These  are  the  children  for  whom 
Rachel  is  represented  as  weeping.  The  prophet,  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord,  bids  her  to  refrain  her  voice  from  weeping,  and 
her  eyes  from  tears,  "  for  thy  work  shall  have  a  reward,  saith 
Jehovah,  and  they  shall  return  out  of  the  land  of  the  enemy. 
There  is  hope  in  thy  latter  end,  saith  Jehovah,  and  thy  children 
shall  return  unto  their  own  border." 

Thus  explained,  the  prophecy  respects  the  restoration  of  the 
ten  tribes.  Hulsius  {Nucleus  P^-ophetice)  and  others  contend 
that  the  prophecy  relates  to  the  captivity  of  Judah  and  Ben- 
jamin, notwithstanding  Ephraim,  or  the  ten  tribes,  is  expressly 
named,  because,  as  Hulsius  says,  there  is  no  mention  made  in 
Scriptures  of  the  restoration  of  the  ten  tribes,  but  on  the 
contrary,  it  is  denied  that  they  ever  will  return.  For  this 
assertion  he  cites  Hosea  i.,  but  see  Hosea  iii.  4,  5;  Ezek. 
xxxvii.  20,  22;  and  Jer.  xxxi.,  throughout.  Professor  Lee 
and  other  writers  entertain  the  same  view,  on  substantially  the 
same  grounds.  This  whole  subject  has  been  ably  discussed  by 
the  Rev.  Walter  Chamberlain,  in  a  work  entitled  the  "National 
Restoration  and  Conversion  of  the  Twelve  Tribes  of  Israel," 
to  which  the  reader  is  referred. 

The  object  of  this  note  is  not  to  enter  into  this  inquiry,  but 
to  consider  what  connection  there  is  between  this  interpretation 
or  view  of  the  prophet's  words,  and  the  massacre  of  the 
children  of  Bethlehem  by  Herod.  On  either  hypothesis  the 
difficulty  is  the  same.  That  there  is  such  a  connection,  hoAv- 
ever,  as  fully  warrants  the  quotation,  may  be  assumed;  but 
what  is  it? 

It  is  to  be  observed,  that  the  Evangelist  quotes  only  the 

15th  verse,  which  is  not  jjrojjhetic  hit  retrospective.       Rachel 

is  represented   as  lamenting  a  calamity  already  suffered.     In 

point  of  fact,  the  ten  tribes  had  been  in  captivity  more  than  a 

7 


50  NOTES   ON   SCEIPTURE. 

century  wlien  Jeremiah  wrote.  The  prophecy  respecting  their 
restoration  is  contained  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  verses, 
which  are  not  quoted. 

The  cause  of  the  himentation  of  Rachel  was  the  ruthless 
violence  of  the  Assyrian  in  carrying  away  the  ten  tribes,  after 
myriads  of  them  had  been  slaughtered.  The  conduct  of  Herod, 
we  may  admit,  Avas  not  less  cruel,  but  this  cannot  be  the  reason 
for  the  quotation ;  for,  besides  that  the  number  of  Herod's 
victims  was  comparatively  small,  it  does  not  appear  that  they 
were  descendants  of  Rachel,  or  of  the  number  of  those  for 
whom  she  is  represented  as  lamenting.  Yet  says  the  Evan- 
gelist, "then  was  fulfilled  that  which  was  spoken  by  Jeremiah, 
&c.,  Rachel  weeping  for  her  children,  and  would  not  be 
comforted,  because  they  are  not." 

To  satisfy  the  words  of  the  Evangelist,  we  must  find  in  the 
conduct  of  Herod  a  renewed  cause  for  the  lamentation  of  the 
mother  of  the  ten  tribes,  and  this  will  appear  if  we  consider  the 
general  design  of  the  Evangelist.  This  design  was,  as  we  have 
seen,  to  represent  the  Lord  Jesus  as  the  seed  in  whom  the 
Abrahamic  and  Davidic  covenants  met,  and  were  to  be  fulfilled. 
These  covenants  required  the  restoration  and  conversion  of 
the  ten  tribes-  of  Israel,  and,  of  course,  the  fulfilment  of 
the  promises  contained  in  the  16th  and  17th  verses,  Jer. 
xxxi. — "they  shall  come  again  from  the  land  of  the  enemy," 
"there  is  hope  in  thine  end,"  thy  children  shall  come  again 
to  the  land  of  their  own  border."  The  rejection  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  by  the  nation,  and  his  crucifixion  by  the  command 
of  Pilate,  postponed,  so  to  speak,  the  realization  of  these 
promises,  and,  in  the  figurative  language  of  the  prophet,  were 
renewed  causes  for  the  weeping  of  their  mother.  In  the  same 
way  the  act  of  Herod  was  a  blow  aimed  at  the  Deliverer,  which 
led  to  his  temporary  exile,  verse  14,  and  afterwards  to  his  resi- 
dence in  a  despised  place,  Matt.  ii.  23,  John  i.  46,  and  the 
reproachful  epithet  of  Nazarene.  All  these  acts  of  Herod,  of 
the  Jews,  of  Pilate,  tended  directly  to  prolong  the  calamity,  at 
first  inflicted  by  the  Assyrian.  In  this  point  of  view  the 
Evangelist  appears  to  have  regarded  it.  If  the  original  cap- 
tivity was  a  cause  of  weeping,  now,  when  the  appointed  time 
for  their  restoration  from  captivity  had  come,  any  act  that 
would  frustrate  their  restoration,  and  thereby  prolong,  if  not 
perpetuate,  their  captivity,  was  a  fresh  cause  for  weeping;  not, 
however,  for  the  children  slain  by  Herod,  who  were  not  of  the 
tribe  of  Ephraim,  but  for  her  own  children,  or  the  ten  tribes 
represented  by  Ephraim,  because,  after  so  long  a  time,  and  even 
after  their  Redeemer  had  come  to  deliver  and  restore  them, 
they  still  are  not.      Before  the  advent  of  their  Redeemer,  she 


JOHN   THE    BAPTIST.  51 

sorrowed  for  their  loss  by  the  hand  of  the  Assyrian.  But  after 
their  Redeemer  came,  and  upon  the  first  public  announcement 
of  his  birth,  Herod  sought  his  life,  and  drove  him  into  exile, 
her  sorrow  for  the  same  cause  is  renewed  and  increased  by 
disappointed  hope.  It  is  true,  Herod  did  not  accomplish  what 
he  attempted,  though  it  is  probable  he  thought  he  had.  But 
the  Evangelist,  writing  after  our  Lord's  ascension,  probably 
grouped  in  his  own  mind  this  act  of  Herod  with  the  act  of  the 
Jews  and  of  Pilate,  who  actually  executed  what  Herod  in  vain 
attempted.  Or,  as  an  old  commentator  expresses  it,  Christ 
being  yet  scarce  born,  beginneth  to  be  crucified  for  us,  &c. 

The  representation  of  the  prophet  is  dramatical.  By  a  bold 
figure,  he  represents  "  Rachel  as  come  forth  from  her  grave, 
lamenting  bitterly  the  loss  of  her  children ;  none  of  whom  pre- 
sented themselves  to  her  view,  being  all  slain  or  gone  into  exile." 
Blaney.  The  Evangelist  adopts  the  imagery  of  the  prophet, 
and  applies  it  to  the  first  of  that  series  of  persecutions,  which 
resulted  in  the  rejection  and  death  of  the  Redeemer  of  her  lost 
ones,  because  by  means  of  those  acts,  the  cause  of  this  mother's 
sorrow  was  prolonged ;  and,  but  for  the  mercy  of  God,  through 
the  blood  of  this  rejected  Redeemer,  would  have  been  per- 
petual. 

This  view  of  the  passage  yields  a  sense  in  harmony  with  the 
scope  of  the  Evangelist,  and  with  the  words,  verse  17,  by  which 
he  introduces  the  quotation.  See  Spanheim,  Duh.  Evang. 
553 — 575,  for  an  elaborate  discussion  of  this  passage. 


CHAPTER     II. 

John's  Character  and  Ministry. — John's  Baptism  emblematical. — Baptism  of 
the  Holy  Spirit. — Baptism  by  Fire. — Baptism  of  Christ. — Commencement  of 
Christ's  Ministry. — Christ's  Sermon  on  the  Mount. — The  Office  of  Faith  in 
Miracles. — Diversities  of  the  Operations  of  Faith.— Christ's  title,  "Son  of 
Man." — Mysteries  of  Christ's  Nature. — Christ's  power  over  the  Physical 
"World. — Christ's  power  over  Evil  Spirits. 

Matthew  hi.  1.  "In  those  days  came  John  the  Baptist  in 
the  wilderness  of  Judea." 

The  Evangelist  refers  to  John  as  a  well-known  character ; 
and  such  he  was  among  the  Jews.  Josephus,  the  historian, 
forty  years  afterwards  speaks  of  him  much  in  the  same  way. 
Antiq.  xviii.  c.  5,  §  2. 

He  was  also  a  very  extraordinary  character,  in  whatever  view  ■ 
we  consider  him.     His  conception  was  announced  by  the  angel 
Gabriel,  Luke  i.  13 — 19.     It  was  miraculous,  or  out  of  the 
ordinary  course  of  nature,  Luke  i.  7 — 18,  as  truly  so  as  was 


52  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

Isaac's,  Rom.  iv.  19.  His  name  (John)  which  signifies  grace^ 
favour,  was  divinely  appointed,  Luke  i.  13,  though  not  pro- 
phesied of.  His  manner  of  life  was  peculiar ;  he  dwelt  in  the 
deserts,  until  the  day  of  his  shoAving  unto  Israel  at  Bethabara, 
near  the  banks  of  Jordan,  Luke  i.  80;  Matt.  xi.  18;  John  i. 
28;  iii.  23.  His  ministry  was  closed  by  his  imprisonment — 
his  imprisonment  by  his  death.  He  was  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  from  his  birth,  Luke  i.  15,  and  performed  his  office 
with  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias,  Luke  i.  17,  although  he 
was  not  Elias  in  person,  John  i.  21,  as  the  name  given  him 
was  designed  to  indicate.  His  mission  and  ministry  Avere  fore- 
told, Isaiah  xl.  3;  Matt.  iii.  1;  Mark  i.  2;  Matt.  xi.  10,  but 
not  under  any  name;  as  was  that  of  Cyrus,  Isaiah  xlv.  1, 
and  that  of  Elijah,  Mai.  iv.  5.  His  mission  was  divine, 
John  i.  6,  33;  Matt.  xxi.  25,  yet  did  he  not  use  the  style  of 
the  prophets,  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord."  The  authentication  of 
his  mission  and  office  was  so  complete,  that  the  common  people 
would  not  permit  even  their  rulers  to  call  it  in  question.  Matt, 
xxi.  26.  The  masses  of  the  people  thronged  his  ministry,  and 
submitted  to  his  baptism,  and  mused  in  their  hearts  whether  he 
were  not  the  Christ,  Matt.  iii.  5;  Luke  iii.  15,  21.  Yet  he 
performed  no  miracle,  John  x.  41.  It  is  remarkable,  too, 
that  the  common  people  received  him  as  a  prophet,  but  not  as 
Elias,  while  the  learned  rejected  him  as  one  possessed  by  the 
devil,  Matt.  xi.  18.  His  ministry  was  limited  to  the  circum- 
cision, as  was  the  personal  ministry  of  our  Lord,  Rom.  xv.  8 ; 
Matt.  XV.  24.  Very  little  has  been  recorded  of  it,  and  nothing 
separately,  but  only  in  connection  with  the  personal  ministry 
of  the  Lord. 

But  whence  did  he  derive  his  cognomination.  Baptist  ?  It 
was  not  said  to  Zacharias  that  he  should  be  so  called,  or  that 
he  should  baptize  the  nation,  Luke  i.  13.  It  was  not  given 
him  at  his  circumcision,  Luke  i.  60 — 63,  Luke  describes  him  as 
John  the  son  of  Zacharias,  iii.  2  ;  yet  the  addition  was  com- 
monly and  properly  made.  Herod  so  called  him,  Matt.  xiv.  2, 
John's  disciples  also,  Luke  vii.  20,  and  our  Lord  himself, 
Luke  vii.  33;  See  also  xiv.  8;  xvii.  13;  Mark  viii.  28;  Luke 
vii.  28 ;  ix.  19.  John  says  of  himself  that  he  was  sent  to 
baptize,  John  i.  33,  though  we  know  he  preached  also,  and 
with  great  power,  Luke  i.  17 ;  iii.  15.  These  were,  however, 
distinct  functions,  1  Cor.  i.  17,  and  with  John  preaching  was 
the  subordinate;  baptizing  the  chief  function.  This  is,  per- 
haps, one  reason  why  our  Lord  said  he  was  more  than  a  pro- 
phet. 

The  explanation  probably  is  this :  John  was  the  forerun- 
ner of  the  new  dispensation,  the  near  approach  of  which  he 


JOHN'S   MISSION.  53 

announced ;  and  his  ministry  was  appointed  to  introduce  it. 
Now  baptism,  or  its  equivalent,  has  hitherto  introduced  every 
economy  of  the  divine  government  since  the  fall  of  man.  Thus, 
Noah  was  introduced  through  water  by  means  of  an  ark  into  a 
new  economy ;  in  fact,  into  a  new  world ;  and  in  this  event  the 
apostle  Peter  finds  the  equivalent  for  baptism,  1  Peter  iii.  20, 
21.  Moses  brought  Israel  into  new  covenant  relations  with 
God,  by  what  Paul  calls  a  baptism  in  the  sea,  and  in  the  cloud, 
1  Cor.  X.  1,  2.  The  economy  established  by  the  hand  of 
Moses,  was  now  about  expiring.  A  new  economy — the  dispen- 
sation of  the  kingdom  of  the  heavens — had  come  nigh.  John 
was  appointed  to  announce  the  event,  and  baptize  the  people  as 
a  preparation  for  it.  This  being  the  chief  object  of  his  mission, 
he  was  therefore  called  the  Baptist. 

Matt.  hi.  3.  "For  this  person,"  says  the  Evangelist,  "is  he 
that  was  spoken  of  by  the  prophet  Esaias,  chap.  xl.  3,  saying, 
The  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness :  Prepare  ye  the  way 
of  the  Lord,  make  his  paths  straight." 

John  the  Baptist  applied  the  same  prophecy  to  himself  in 
answer  to  the  questions  of  the  priests  and  Levites  sent  from 
Jerusalem  to  him  at  Jordan,  "Who  art  thou?"  "What  sayest 
thou  of  thyself?"  John  i.  22,  23.  Our  Lord  also  applied  to 
him  the  prophecy  in  Mai.  iii.  1,  Matt.  xi.  10,  and  the 
Evangelist  Mark  applies  to  him  both,  Isa.  xl.  3,  and  Mai.  iii.  1, 
Mark  i.  2,3.  It  is  remarkable  that  neither  of  the  Evangelists, 
nor  the  Baptist,  nor  our  Lord,  ever  quotes  or  cites  the  very 
notable  prophecy  in  Mai.  iv.  5,  concerning  the  mission  of  Elijah, 
as  having  reference  to  the  person  of  John.  But  the  common 
opinion  of  Protestant  commentators  of  the  last  two  centuries 
is,  that  all  these  prophecies  were  fulfilled  by  the  mission  of 
John  the  Baptist.  Augustine,  Chrysostom,  Jerome,  and  the 
early  Christian  writers,  on  the  contrary,  generally  held  that 
the  last  of  these  prophecies,  Mai.  iv.  5,  is  yet  unfulfilled.  As 
the  point  is  of  considerable  importance  in  its  bearings  on  the 
interpretation  of  other  Scriptures,  it  deserves  a  careful  inves- 
tigation. With  a  view  to  this  question,  several  distinctions, 
besides  that  above  suggested,  should  be  carefully  considered. 
We  notice  them  in  this  place  very  briefly,  because  they  will 
occur  in  connection  with  other  texts. 

(1.)  John  was  not  Elias  in  'person,  John  i.  21.  He  came 
during  the  continuance  of  the  legal  economy.  His  mission  was 
unsuccessful.  He  did  not  restore  all  things.  Matt.  xvii.  11, 
Acts  iii.  21.  The  Jews  nationally  rejected  the  Lord  Jesus, 
and  for  that  sin  were  destroyed  as  a  nation,  and  scattered 
among  the  Gentiles.  The  restitution  of  all  things  is  still  future, 
Acts  iii.  21.     But  the  prophecy  (Mai.  iv.  5)  foretells  that  the 


54  NOTES   OX  SCRIPTURE. 

mission  of  Elijah  will  be  successful.  "He  shall  turn  the  hearts 
of  the  fathers  to  the  children,"  &c.,  otherwise  the  Lord  will 
smite  the  earth  with  a  second  curse,  Mai.  iv.  6,  Matt.  xvii.  11. 
While  the  legal  economy  lasted,  and  before  the  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  had  been  purchased  by  the  death  of  Christ,  the 
mission  of  Elijah  would  have  been  premature,  because,  owing 
to  the  depravity  of  human  nature,  it  would  infallibly  have  been 
unsuccessful,  as  John's  ministry  proved ;  and  so  this  prophecy 
would  have  failed.  But  when  Elijah  comes,  it  will  not  be  in  his 
oion  spirit  and  power,  but  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  God  the 
Lord,  as  his  name  imports,  whose  influences  have  been  secured 
by  the  work  of  Christ. 

(2.)  Although  John  the  Baptist  was  not  Elijah  in  person,  yet 
he  was  equal  to  Elijah,  Matt.  xi.  11.  He  went  forth  to  the 
people  in  all  the  energy  and  power  of  Elijah,  Luke  i.  17.  He 
was  therefore,  in  his  office  and  functions,  the  Elijah  of  the  legal 
economy,  and  was  raised  up  especially  to  fulfil  the  ofiice  of  Eli- 
jah at  that  time— that  is,  to  do  all  that  Elijah  himself  could 
have  done  towards  preparing  the  way  of  the  Lord,  had  he  been 
sent  to  Israel  at  that  time  in  person.  John  would  have  been 
the  Elijah  foretold,  if  the  people  had  received  him.  Matt.  xi. 
14.  But  it  was  not  more  impossible  for  John  to  be  Elijah  in 
person,  than  it  was  for  the  Jews  to  receive  him  with  the  obedi- 
ence of  faith,  Jer.  xiii.  23 ;  Isa.  liv.  13 ;  John  vi.  44,  45. 

(3.)  John  was  the  subject  of  prophecy  as  well  as  Elijah,  but 
not  of  the  same  prophecies.  John  was  not  prophesied  of  by 
name,  but  only  by  description ;  as  a  voice  crying  in  the  wilder- 
ness, Isa.  xl.  3,  or  as  a  messenger  sent  before  the  face  of  the 
Lord,  to  prepare  his  way,  Mai.  iii.  1,  Elijah  was  prophesied 
of  by  name,  and  his  mission  and  the  successful  result  of  it 
expressly  foretold. 
_  (4.)  Both,  however,  were  prophesied  of,  as  ministers  of  the 
circumcision.  Both  were  to  be  sent  to  a  people  dwelling  to- 
gether in  the  land  of  Israel,  and  not  to  that  people,  as  they 
now  are,  scattered  abroad  among  the  nations.  It  is  implied 
therefore  in  the  prophecy  of  the  future  coming  of  Elijah,  that 
Israel  shall  yet  be  restored  to  their  land  and  be  dwelling  therein, 
after  Avhich  this  prophecy  shall  be  fulfilled. 

Matt.  hi.  6.  "And  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,  con- 
fessing their  sins." 

Paul  represents  the  miraculous  passage  of  Israel  through  the 
Red  Sea  as  a  baptism  into  Moses,  -1  Cor.  x.  1,  2,  but  not  their 
miraculous  passage  through  the  river  Jordan,  Josh.  iii.  14,  16, 
as  a  baptism  into  Joshua.  Why  was  not  the  latter  a  baptism 
in  the  same  sense  as  the  former?  The  reason  for  the  distinc- 
tion is  not  to  be  found  in  the  nature  or  the  relative  magnitude 


JOHN  S   BAPTISM.  55 

of  the  miracles,  but  in  the  character  and  official  relations  of  the 
persons  who  performed  them.  Moses  introduced,  officially  or 
instrumentally,  a  new  economy  which  was  appointed  to  subsist 
until  the  Messiah  should  come,  John  i.  17;  Joshua  fulfilled  no 
such  office,  Heb.  iv.  8.  The  functions  he  performed  were  sub- 
sidiary to  the  work  of  Moses,  and  were  not  undertaken  until 
near  forty  years  after  the  giving  of  the  law.  His  taking  the 
people  through  Jordan  was  not,  in  any  sense,  a  baptism  intro- 
ductory to  a  new  economy,  though  it  was  a  miraculous  mani- 
festation of  the  divine  power,  and  a  wonderful  proof  of  the 
theocracy  which  had  been  established  over  Israel  at  Mount 
Sinai.  As  such,  it  was  proper  to  be  commemorated  by  especial 
means,  Josh.  iv.  4,  7,  20,  23.  But  Joshua,  as  well  as  John 
the  Baptist,  was,  in  a  certain  sense,  a  forerunner  of  the  Lord 
Jesus.  He  was  also  a  type  of  him.  By  taking  the  people 
through  Jordan,  Joshua  did  not  introduce  them  into  the  pro- 
mised rest  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  Heb.  iv.  8,  but  he  pre- 
figured by  this  act  that  which  Jesus — the  Prince  who  appeared 
to  Joshua,  v.  13,  14,  15 — now  at  the  close  of  that  economy  had 
come  to  perform,  Luke  i.  68 — 75,  by  actually  bestowing  upon 
Israel  the  blessings  of  the  kingdom  of  which  the  promised  land 
was  a  type. 

There  may  also  be  something  significant  in  the  place  where 
John  baptized.  If  it  be  inquired  why  John  baptized  in  Jordan 
rather  than  in  any  other  stream,  may  we  not  answer  that  both 
Jordan  and  Canaan  were  types  of  heavenly  things,  and  that 
John,  as  the  baptizer  of  Israel  in  Jordan,  performed  an  office 
which  Joshua  could  not,  because  the  time  appointed  for  it  had 
not  come?  This  answer,  if  well  founded,  suggests  the  further 
observation  that  John's  ministry  of  baptism  in  Jordan,  was,  so 
to  speak,  supplementary  to  Joshua's  in  conducting  the  people 
through  Jordan,  and  that  the  functions  of  both  Joshua  and 
John  must  be  combined,  in  order  to  make  up  what  was  included 
in  the  corresponding  part  of  the  ministry  of  Moses.*  John  the 
Baptist  performed  no  miracle,  but  Joshua  and  Jesus  did. 
Neither  Joshua  nor  Jesus  baptized  the  people,  though  they 
were  themselves  baptized.  We  do  not  read  that  John  the  Bap- 
tist was  baptized  by  Jesus  or  by  any  other,  although  he  was 
filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit  from  his  birth,  Luke  i.  15. 

Matt.  hi.  11.  "I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  unto' — in 
order  to — "repentance;  but  he  that  cometh  after  me     .     .     . 

*  Quod  Moses  nequivit,  Joshua  fecit ;  quod  Joshua  non  facere  potuit  (intro- 
ducere  in  coelestem  requiem)  Jesus  efficit  solus.  Joshua  fluentum  dirimit, 
aquas  dissecat  sed  Dei  manu: — Jesus  .  .  .  propria  potentia,  mari,  vento,  tiuc- 
tibus  imperat.  Area  foederis  in  aquis  stans  omnibus  Israelitarum  securum 
transitum  praebuit :  Jesus  in  Jordane  stans,  coelum  aperuit,  etc. — J.  II.  Mains. 


56  NOTES   ON  SCRIPTURE. 

he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  [with]  fire," 
Luke  iii.  16. 

John  was  a  minister  of  the  circumcision.  His  mission,  like 
that  of  Isaiah,  Elijah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  the  other  prophets, 
was  to  the  "house  of  Israel,"  or  rather  to  the  "house  of 
Judah."  His  baptism  was  appointed  for  the  whole  people,  and 
his  preaching  was  addressed  to  all.  Acts  xiii.  24;  Luke  iii.  18, 
21.  We  are  to  understand  "you,"  therefore,  in  this  enlarged 
or  national  sense.  "  I  baptize  you"  Israel,  or  house  of  Israel, 
"with  water,"  &c.  In  the  same  enlarged  sense  we  are  to  under- 
stand the  word  "you"  in  the  last  clause,  "  He  shall  baptize 
you"  0  house  of  Israel  "with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire" — not 
you  pharisees  and  sadducees,  yEvvTjiiara  k'^covcou. 

One  object  of  John  was,  to  state  a  contrast  between  the  bap- 
tism which  he  administered  and  that  which  should  afterwards 
be  administered  by  him  whom  he  preceded.  It  is  implied  also, 
that  his  baptism  would  be  ineff'ectual  to  secure  their  national 
repentance.  They — that  is  the  nation — needed,  and  at  some 
time  afterwards  should  receive,  a  baptism  of  divine  power, 
which  should  be  eff"ectual.  Acts  v.  31.  The  last  clause  is  there- 
fore prophetical  and  as  yet  unfulfilled.  The  nation  has  never 
yet  been  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  A  long  interval  had 
been  laid  in  the  divine  plan  between  John's  day  and  the  fulfil- 
ment of  this  prophecy  or  promise,  during  which  many  mo- 
mentous events  were  to  occur ; — The  appearance  and  public 
ministry  of  the  Lord  Jesus — his  rejection  and  death — the  open- 
ing of  a  new  dispensation  for  the  gathering  and  upbuilding  of 
the  Church — the  destruction  of  the  temple — the  dispersion  of 
the  people  among  all  nations  during  the  times  of  the  Church 
militant — the  final  restoration  of  Israel  to  their  own  land — the 
mission  of  Elijah  to  them  in  their  restored  condition  at  the  time 
of  the  proximate  approach  of  the  restitution  of  all  things.  Acts 
iii.  21,  and  see  note  on  that  verse.  Not  until  all  these  things 
shall  have  come  to  pass  will  this  prediction  of  John  the  Baptist 
be  fulfilled.  But  then  it  will  be ;  for  observe  the  prediction  is 
absolute.  "He  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
with'fire."  The  prediction  is  concurrent  or  parallel  with  Mai. 
iv.  5,  6.     See  Ezek.  xxxix.  28,  29. 

John's  baptism  of  the  nation  with  water,  was  simply  em- 
blematical of  this  future  baptism  of  the  nation  with  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Neither  has  respect  to  the  Church.  John's  baptism 
preceded  the  times  of  the  Church — the  baptism  of  which  he 
prophesied  will  follow  those  times.  The  baptism  which  our 
Lord  appointed  after  his  resurrection,  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  on  the 
other  hand,  had  respect  to  the  Church  which  is  to  be  taken  out 
of  all  nations,  Acts  xv.  14.     It  looks  forward  to  the  end  of  the 


BAPTISM   WITH    THE    HOLY   GHOST.  57 

dispensation  of  the  gospel  among  all  nations,  and  the  comple- 
tion of  the  elect  body  of  Christ.  There  it  terminates.  In  this 
respect  it  is  like  the  Lord's  supper,  which  was  appointed  to 
show  forth  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come,  1  Cor.  xi.  2tj.  The 
second  coming  of  Christ  and  the  gathering  of  the  Church  unto 
him,  will  supersede  both,  as  his  first  coming  supei-sedcd  the 
institution  of  the  passover.  So  the  baptism  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  which  our  Lord  promised  to  the  apostles  on  the  day  of 
his  final  ascension.  Acts  i.  4,  had  the  Church  in  view.  See 
notes  on  Acts  i.  5,  and  Mark  xvi.  15,  16,  Acts.  ii.  2 — 4.  The 
baptism  which  John  promised  to  the  whole  nation,  the  Lord 
actually  bestowed  on  a  few  who  received  him,  John  i.  12,  but 
withheld  it  at  that  time  from  the  masses,  who  rejected  him, 
though  he  will  yet  fulfil  the  promise  on  all  Israel  it  its  amplest 
sense,  Rom.  xi.  29,  when  the  times  appointed  to  the  Gentiles 
shall  have  been  fulfilled,  Rom.  xi.  25,  27. 

The  fall  of  Israel  gave  occasion  to  the  dispensation  of  the 
gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  Rom.  xi.  11,  to  the  dispersion  of  the 
Jews  among  the  Gentiles,  and  the  consequent  postponement  of 
the  restitution  of  all  things,  and  the  baptism  of  Israel  as  a 
nation  by  the  Holy  Ghost :  so  that  the  present  dispensation  for 
the  building  of  the  Church  is  intercalated,  if  we  may  so  express 
it,  between  the  baptism  of  the  nation  by  John  with  water,  and 
the  promised  baptism  of  the  nation  by  Christ  with  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

Besides  this  difference  in  the  times  and  persons  to  which  the 
baptism  of  John  and  that  appointed  by  our  Lord  relate,  there 
is  another,  too  important  to  be  passed  without  notice.  The 
baptism  of  John  was  ineffectual,  because  it  was  not  attended  by 
the  Holy  Spirit's  influence.  Indeed,  the  promise  of  a  future 
baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost  implied  a  negative  of  his  present 
influence.  But  the  baptism  with  water  appointed  by  Christ 
after  his  resurrection  will  be  made  effectual  upon  the  elect  by 
the  accompanying  energies  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  So  that 
although  the  baptism  of  John  was  ineffectual  to  prepare  Israel 
for  the  first  coming  of  Christ,  the  latter  will  be  effectual 
to  prepare  the  elect  church  for  his  second  coming.  This  great 
object,  the  completion  of  the  church,  having  been  accomplished 
through  the  Lord's  death,  resurrection,  and  ascension,  he  will, 
at  his  second  coming,  baptize  the  bodies  of  his  elect,  both  the 
living  and  the  dead,  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  thereby  transforming 
them  into  bodies  of  glory  like  his  own,  Philip,  iii.  20,  21 — 
their  souls  having  already  been  baptized  with  the  renewing 
influences  of  the  Spirit.  He  will,  at  the  same  time,  also 
baptize  the  souls  of  his  restored  people  Israel  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  as  he  did  the  twelve  apostles  on  the  Pentecost  after  his 


58  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 

ascension,  thereby  converting  them  universally  into  an  emi- 
nently holy  people.  And  the  Spirit  will  also,  at  the  same 
epoch,  to  complete  the  restitution  of  all  things,  move,  as  he  did 
at  the  beginning,  over  the  face  of  physical  nature.  Gen.  i.  2, 
delivering  [zou  xoanov)  the  earth  itself  and  its  furniture  of 
creatures  from  the  bondage  to  which  the  Creator  subjected  them 
by  reason  of  sin,  Rom.  viii.  20,  21.  Vast,  and  very  various 
then,  will  be  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  bringing  about  this 
mighty  change  of  the  Divine  administration,  dependent  upon 
the  second  coming  of  the  Lord  to  fulfil  this  prediction  of  John 
the  Baptist. 

It  is  worthy  of  observation,  that  our  Lord  promised  the 
apostles  at  his  last  interview,,  Acts  i.  5,  "that  they  should  be 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days  hence."  By 
these  words  he  alluded  by  way  of  contrast,  as  we  suppose,  to 
the  more  distant  fulfilment  of  the  prediction  made  by  John. 
As  if  he  had  said,  "  God's  promise  by  the  mouth  of  John  the 
Baptist  to  all  Israel  shall  be  fulfilled  to  you  who  have  received 
me,  not  many  days  hence,  however  long  it  may  be  deferred  to 
those  who  rejected  me."  John  i.  12.  If  this  suggestion  is  w^ell 
founded,  all  the  apostles  might  have  applied  to  themselves  the 
expression  of  Paul,  1  Cor.  xv.  8,  regarding  himself  as  having 
been  born  of  God  before  the  due  time ; — i.  e.  the  time  appointed 
for  all  Israel.     See  Joseph  lledes  note  on  this  text. 

We  observe  again:  Our  Lord  did  not  promise  the  apostles 
baptism  "with  fire,"  although  the  fact  of  such  a  promise  as  he 
made  has  inclined  many  to  suppose  the  whole  of  the  prediction 
of  John  was  actually  fulfilled  at  that  time.  It  is  by  no  means 
necessary,  however,  to  suppose  that  the  cloven  tongues  ^^like  as 
of  fire,"  resting  upon  the  twelve  apostles,  were  the  baptism 
with  fire  which  John  the  Baptist  predicted.  They  may  be 
regarded  as  emblems  or  visible  signs  of  the  Holy  Spirit's 
presence,  designed  to  convince  the  apostles,  and  those  who  saw 
them,  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  Saviour's  promise  to  send  the 
Comforter  to  them,  John  xvi.  7.  In  the  case  of  Cornelius  and 
his  kinsmen.  Acts  x.  24,  the  Holy  Spirit  also  descended 
visibly:  the  object  of  the  visible  demonstration  being  to  teach 
the  apostles  God's  purpose  to  admit  Gentiles  into  the  church, 
and  so  Peter  considered  it,  Acts  x.  47.  In  the  case  of  the 
apostles,  they  were  tokens  or  badges  of  authority  which  none 
could  dispute,  and  as  such  were  important  means  in  laying  the 
foundation  of  the  church.  We  do  not  read  that  the  apostles, 
except  Paul,  Acts  ix.  18,  were  baptized  with  water  (unless 
with  the  baptism  of  John,)  either  before  or  after  the  day  of 
Pentecost — the  symbol  of  water  in  baptism  having  been  design- 


BAPTISM  WITH  FIRE.  59 

crlly  supplied,  it  may  be,  by  more  impressive  emblems  of  the 
Spirit's  presence  on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 

Matt.  hi.  12 :  "  Whose  fan  (is)  in  his  hand,  and  he  will  thor 
oughly  purge  his  floor  and  gather  the  wheat  into  his  garner, 
but  he  will  burn  up  the  chaff  with  unquenchable  fire."  Luke 
iii.  17. 

This  verse,  if  not  exegetical  of  the  preceding,  should  be 
interpreted  in  connection  with  its  last  clause.  It  is  predictive 
of  God's  dealings  with  Israel  after  their  restoration,  prepara- 
tory to  their  baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  or,  it  may  be,  in 
connection  with  it.  Ezekiel,  chap.  xx.  38,  foretells  that  God 
will  purge  out  from  among  the  house  of  Israel  rebels  and  trans- 
gressors, see  vs.  33 — 40,  and  there  are  other  similar  prophe- 
cies. See  Deut.  xviii.  15 — 19,  Acts  iii.  23,  and  note  on  that 
verse.  The  language  is  figurative,  taken  from  husbandry. 
The  same  figure  is  made  the  groundwork  of  the  parable  of  the 
tares.  Matt.  xiii.  30,  40,  41,  although  the  parable  has  a  wider 
scope  than  this  verse.  It  is  implied  in  the  language  of  John, 
that  the  acts  of  purging  of  the  floor  and  the  separating  of  the 
wheat  from  the  chaff,  are  to  be  performed  at  the  time  of  the 
harvest,  which,  in  the  parable  of  the  tares,  is  declared  to  be  the 
end  of  the  world.  Matt.  xiii.  39,  that  is  (too  auovo(;)  of  this 
dispensation  of  the  gospel  among  the  Gentiles,  and  no  reason  is 
perceived  why  the  same  symbol,  "  harvest,"  should  be  used  to 
denote  different,  even  remote  epochs.  Some  of  the  arguments 
under  the  last  verse  might  here  be  repeated,  but  we  add  under 
this  head  only  that  both  Mark  and  John  omit  this  verse,  and 
the  last  two  words,  "with  fire,"  of  the  preceding  verse.  The 
reason  may  be  that  the  matter  exclusively  concerned  Israel, 
and  was  not  of  so  much  importance  to  Gentile  Christians,  for 
whom  chiefly  they  wrote.  These  observations  suggest  our  next 
remark:  The  words  "with  fire,"  or  baptism  with  fire,  denote 
punishment.  The  meaning  may  be  thus  expressed:  "He," 
the  Messiah,  at  his  second  appearing  to  you,  0  house  of 
Israel,  after  your  final  restoration,  Ezek.  xx.  33  et  seq.,  shall 
baptize  (consume)  and  utterly  destroy*  those  of  you  who  still 
continue  to  be  rebels  and  transgressors  against  him  with  fire, 
see  note  on  Acts  iii.  22,  23;  while  those  who  repent  and  are 
inclined  to  obey  his  voice  he  will  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 
This  interpretation  is  borne  out  by  the  last  clause  of  the  twelfth 
verse.  The  c/«a^  denotes  those  whom  the  Lord  will  reject  and 
cut  off  from  the  people,   and  the  burning  of  the  chaff  with 

*  The  expression  is  elliptical;  we  supply  the  word  "baptize"  from  the  pre- 
ceding phrase.  If  the  expression,  "  baptize  with  fire,"  in  the  scn.se  of  con- 
sume, seems  unusual,  the  reader  may  adopt  the  word  "consume"  or  destroy, 
which  is  the  sense  as  it  appears  to  the  writer. 


60  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

unquenchable  fire  denotes  their  sudden  and  utter  destruction. 
To  this  extent,  at  least,  the  twelfth  appears  to  be  exegetical  of 
the  eleventh  verse. 

Upon  the  whole,  then,  it  is  submitted  that  these  two  verses 
relate  exclusively  to  Israel  as  a  nation — that  they  are  predic- 
tive of  events,  not  only  still  future,  but  events  which  cannot 
occur,  until  the  winding  up  of  the  present  dispensation;  nor 
until  the  eve  of,  or  after,  the  restoration  of  that  people  to  their 
land — that  then  God  will  try  that  people,  and  separate  those 
who  remain  obdurate  and  rebellious  from  the  rest,  and  destroy 
them  utterly;  while  he  will  baptize  the  saved  ones  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  as  he  did  the  twelve  apostles  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, only  in  a  larger  measure^  in  order  to  fit  them  for  the 
higher  and  holier  dispensation  of  the  kingdom  of  God  to  come, 
Matt.  vi.  10,  See  note  on  Acts  iii.  22,  23,  in  which  even  the 
least  of  them  shall  be  greater  than  the  apostles  were  during 
their  earthly  ministry.  The  common  interpretation  of  these 
verses  is  liable  to  several  objections  beside  those  implied  in  the 
foreo:oing  remarks. 

The  apostles  were  not  baptized  with  fire  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost, Acts  ii.  8.  The  parted  tongues  which  sat  upon  them 
were  not  fire,  though  they  had  the  appearance  of  fire.  Nor  was 
any  considerable  part  of  the  nation  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost.  The  great  body  not  only  remained  obdurate  and  rebel- 
lious, but  became  worse  and  worse,  till  they  were  destroyed  as 
a  nation.  Yet  dreadful  as  were  the  divine  judgments,  there 
was  mercy  mingled  with  them.  The  people  were  scattered,  yet 
preserved  as  a  race.  They  are  probably  now,  and  for  ages 
past  have  been,  as  numerous  as  they  were  then.  These  events 
do  not  come  up  to,  or  correspond  with  the  language  of  the  12th 
verse.  The  thorough  purging  of  the  floor,  the  gathering  of  the 
wheat  into  the  store-house,  and  the  burning  of  the  chaff  (the 
wicked)  with  unquenchable  fire,  denote  decisive  and  final  action, 
not  corrective  punishments  (to  be  followed  by  another  trial) 
such  as  the  prophets  predict.  Ezek.  xx.  35 — 38,  xxxviii.,  Mai. 
iv.,  Zech.  xiii.  8,  9,  xiv.,  iii.  9,  Jerem.  xxxiii.  8,  Isa.  iv.  3,  4, 
Joel  ii.  iii. 

The  interpolation  of  the  word  ^'s,  by  the  translators,  has  pro- 
bably given  occasion  to  the  common  interpretation.  Retaining 
this  word,  however,  the  language  is  parabolical ;  and  in  para- 
bles, the  time  of  the  action  represented,  does  not  depend  upon 
the  grammatical  tenses  employed  in  their  construction.* 

*  The  phrase  (oJ  to  tttuov  \v  th  ^(iifii  ethrov)  is  an  example  of  the  nominative 
absolute.  The  noun  has  no  finite  verb  in  the  original,  and  should  have  none  ia 
the  translation.  The  writer  or  speaker  appears  to  have  cut  short  the  construc- 
tion first  intended,  and  adopted  another.     Many  examples  of  this  sort  occur  ia 


BAPTISM    OF    CHRIST.  Gl 

Matt.  hi.  14.  "But  John  forbade  him  saying,  I  have  need 
to  be  baptized  of  thee,  and  comest  thou  to  me?"  or,  "I  have 
need  to  be  baptized  of  thee,  and  thou  comest  to  me !" 

When  we  consider  that  John  was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
from  his  birth,  Luke  i.  15,  that  his  mind  and  affections  were 
renewed,  and  his  whole  spiritual  nature  fitted  for  the  eminent 
services  for  which  he  had  been  raised  up,  we  naturally  inquire 
in  what  sense  he  needed  baptism.  A  holier  man  than  he  had 
never  lived,  for  holiness  in  the  divine  regard,  is  an  indispensable 
element  of  greatness.  Matt.  xi.  11.  Even  the  apostles  after  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  it  is  probable,  were  not  so  fully  nor  so  con- 
stantly possessed  by  the  Holy  Ghost  as  was  John.  What  further 
need  then  had  John  to  be  baptized  of  any?  Are  these  Avords 
anything  more  than  an  expression  of  the  humble  sense  this 
eminently  holy  man  entertained  of  himself  in  comparison  with 
the  august  Being  who  stood  before  him  ?  We  apprehend  they 
are.  The  words  {iyco  "^pecau  i/w)  "I  have  need,"  denote  a  real 
necessity;  and  if  they  were  uttered  by  the  promptings  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  within  him,  we  must  interpret  them  in  a  sense  com- 
mensurate with  the  Spirit's  work.  Accordingly,  we  understand 
them  not  only  of  something  which  John  then  had  not,  but  of 
something  which  he  could  only  receive  through  the  baptism  of 
Jesus.  Now  it  may  safely  be  afiirmed,  that  John  had  all  which 
the  Holy  Ghost  has  ever  done  or  ever  will  do  for  any  man  in 
this  life  in  the  way  of  sanctifiation,  except  for  those  of  the 
Lord's  elect,  who  shall  be  alive  at  his  second  coming.  Philip,  iii. 
21;  1  Thess.  iv.  17.  All  that  remained  for  John  to  desire,  or 
for  the  Spirit  to  do,  was  the  regeneration  or  glorification  of  his 
body;  the  Spirit's  crowning  work  in  man's  redemption,  which 
could  not  precede,  but  must  follow  the  sacrificial  work  of  Christ, 
and  his  ascension  to  glory. 

The  reply  of  the  Lord  Jesus  tacitly  concedes  what  John  had 
said  of  himself,  and  by  joining  John  as,  in  some  sense,  a 
co-worker  with  him,  he  virtually  promised  John  the  baptism 
he  desired.  As  if  he  had  said,  "True,  thou  hast  need  to  be 
baptized  by  me;  and  hereafter — not  now — I  will  baptize  thee 
with  my  baptism."  What  he  added,  revealed  to  John,  it  is 
probable,  a  purpose  which  he  did  not  understand  before.  We 
paraphrase  it  thus,  "Yet  baptize  thou  me  with  water  now,  for 
the  appointed  way  to  my  baptism  is  through  thine.     I  must 

the  New  Testament.  They  are  characteristic  of  impassioned  discourse.  The 
connection  and  the  sense  may  be  expressed  thus:  "  I  indeed  baptize  you  with 
■water,  but  the  days  are  coming  when  Messiah  sliall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  fire.  At  that  time  going  forth,  with  liis  fan  in  hand,  as  the  husband- 
man docs,  in  the  time  of  hai-vest,  he  will  thoroughly  purge  his  floorj"  etc. 


62  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

first  be  baptized  with  water  to  prefigure  my  death  and  burial, 
and  then  again  be  baptized  with  the  Spirit  for  my  glorification. 
Luke  xii.  50,  and  see  the  introductory  note  on  Acts,  chap.  ii. 
Afterwards  I  will  baptize  thee.  In  this  manner  it  is  appointed 
unto  us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness." 

Matt.  III.  15.  ^  "Suffer  it  to  be  so  now"— rather  (d^sc  dprc) 
"Suffer  it  at  this  time;"  the  word  dpzi  being  used  in  the 
sense  of  the  Hebrew  hap-pa-am  Qyon  (Gen.  ii.  23,  xxix.  35; 
Exod.  ix.  27.)  There  is  a  tacit  allusion  in  this  expression 
to  another  time  or  coming,  as  if  the  Lord  had  said,  "I  have 
now  come  to  offer  this  human  body  which  I  have  assumed, 
as  a  sacrifice  for  sin ;  and  the  baptism  of  it,  which  I  seek  at 
your  hands,  is  a  typical  showing  forth  of  the  sacrifice  I  am  to 
make.  But  I  shall  come  {ix  deuzefjou,  Heb.  ix.  28,  aTV  dpzij 
Matt.  xxvi.  64,)  at  another  time,  and  at  that,  my  second  com- 
ing— that  time,  this  rite,  as  you  suppose,  will  not  be  proper; 
for  then  shall  I  come,  without  a  sin-offering,  not  in  a  body  to 
be  sacrificed  for  sin,  but  in  glory  for  the  salvation  of  those  who 
shall  then  look  for  me,  and  love  my  appearing.  Heb.  ix.  28; 
2  Tim.  iv.  8. 

May  Ave  not  suppose  that  our  Lord  then  first  made  known  to 
John  the  mystery  of  his  sufferings  and  death ;  for  John  at  first 
recoiled  from  the  service  required  of  him,  as  though  it  were  no 
part  of  his  ofiice  to  perform  it.  It  was  after  this,  too,  that 
John  called  the  Lord  Jesus  the  Lamb  of  God,  who  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  the  world,  John  i.  29.  It  was  then  also  John 
discovered  the  Messiah,  whose  coming  he  had  announced,  in 
the  person  of  Jesus,  John  i.  31,  33;  first  by  the  special  reve- 
lation of  Jesus,  and  immediately  afterwards  by  the  descent  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  form  of  a  dove.  John  must  have  dis- 
cerned also,  in  this  typical  action,  the  unsuccessful  issue  of 
his  own  ministry;  for  it  was  impossible  that  he  should  be 
received  by  the  nation  in  the  spirit  of  his  mission,  and  Jesus  be 
rejected. 

This  interpretation  of  the  passage  suggests  a  reason  for  the 
{xo:viov/-(T!i:)  peculiar  phraseology  of  our  Lord's  address  to  John — 
"For  so,"  that  is,  in  this  typical  way,  "it  becometh  us  to  fulfil 
all  righteousness."  The  actual  fulfilling  of  all  righteousness 
was  certainly  our  Lord's  sole  work.  "  He  trod  the  wine-press 
alone."  But  John  could  take  part  with  him  in  this  typical 
action,  Avhich  significantly  set  it  forth. 

If  we  reflect  that  the  Lord  was  speaking  to  one  filled  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  (and  therefore  able  to  comprehend  his  mean- 
ing,) about  a  mystery  of  redemption,  not  understood  by  this 
eminently  gifted  man  before,  we  shall  be  convinced  that  the 


PURPOSE    OF   JOHN'S    MINISTRY.  G3 

sense  in  which  these  verses  are  commonly  interpreted,  falls  far 
short  of  their  true  intent  and  meaning. 

Matt.  hi.  17.  "This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am 
well  pleased."  These  words  attested  to  John  the  Baptist  the 
divine  Sonship  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  the  Father's  approbation. 
If  we  now  turn  to  Matt.  xvii.  5;  Mark  ix.  7;  Luke  ix.  35, 
we  find  that  the  same  words  were  uttered  in  the  hearing  of 
Peter,  James,  and  John,  with  the  addition  of  a  command — 
"Hear  ye  him."  Why  this  difference?  May  we  not  find  it 
in  the  different  offices  to  be  performed  by  these  persons  ?  John 
the  Baptist  was  the  forerunner  of  the  Lord.  His  ministry 
must  end  before  that  of  the  Lord  Jesus  could  hegin,  Matt.  iv. 
12,  17.  The  disciples,  on  the  other  hand,  were  to  be  amhas- 
sadors  (ministers,  servants,)  to  publish  the  messages  the  Lord 
gave  them.  Hence  the  {abzou  dxouere)  command  was  added — 
"Hear,  obey  him,"  thus  making  their  mission,  if  we  may  so 
say,  twice  divine,  from  the  Father  as  well  as  from  the  Son. 
This  explanation,  if  correct,  discloses  one  of  those  nice  congru- 
ities  or  fitnesses  which  tend  strongly  to  establish  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  Gospels.  No  fabricator  of  fictitious  writings 
would  have  thought  of  such  a  distinction.  This  is  proved  by 
the  fact  that  so  few  readers  of  the  Gospels  observe  it,  until 
pointed  out,  or  if  they  do,  do  not  discover  the  reason  of  it. 

Luke  i.  17.  "And  he  shall  go  before  him  in  the  spirit  and 
power  of  Elias,  to  turn  the  hearts  of  the  fathers  to  the  children, 
and  the  disobedient  to  the  wisdom  of  the  just,  to  make  ready  a 
people  prepared  for  the  Lord." 

These  words  are  a  part  of  the  message  sent  by  the  angel 
Gabriel  to  Zacharias.  They  are  not  a  quotation  from  any  of 
the  prophets,  but  something  new,  which  the  angel  was  sent 
especially  to  make  known  to  the  devout  priest,  ver.  19.  That 
the  promised  son  was  not  to  be  Elijah  is  apparent,  not  only 
from  the  name  by  which  he  was  to  be  called,  but  from  the 
very  nature  of  the  promise  itself,  ver.  13;  and  so  Zacharias 
understood  it,  ver.  18.  To  denote  the  energy  of  his  character 
and  ministry,  the  angel  was  bid  to  say,  "he  sliall  go  before  the 
Lord  m  the  spirit  and  poiver  of  Elias,'"  which  necessarily 
implies  that  he  should  have  power  to  do  all  that  Elias  himself 
could  do,  to  make  ready  a  people  prepared  for  the  Lord.  The 
angel  did  not  declare  the  result  of  his  ministry,  but  only  the 
purpose  of  it.  We  know  that  it  failed.  The  nation  rejected 
the  Lord,  and  for  that  reason  were  rejected  by  him  for  a  season. 
Hence,  we  may  safely  infer,  that  the  words  of  Malachi  (iv.  5,  6) 
remain  to  be  fulfilled: — "He,"  viz.  Elijah,  "shall  turn  the 
hearts  of  the  fathers  to  the  children,  and  the  hearts  of  the 
children  to  the  fathers,  lest  I  come  and  smite  the  earth  with  a 


64  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

curse."  The  consequence  of  Elijah's  failure  is  expressed  in 
terms*  which  indicate  God's  purpose  to  prevent  it. 

Although  the  prophet  does  not  intimate  what  those  prevent- 
ive means  would  be,  we  know  that  they  were  to  be  the  new 
creating  energies  of  the  Holj  Spirit,  purchased  by  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ,  which  was  accomplished  through  the  sin  of  the 
people,  to  whom  John  was  sent  in  the  spirit  and  power  of 
Elias.  Indeed,  the  purpose  of  redemption  is  so  connected 
"with  the  national  salvation  of  Israel,  by  God's  covenant  with 
Abraham  and  David,  that  we  are  authorized  by  his  own  word, 
to  say  that  the  one  can  fail  as  soon  as  the  other,  Deut.  xxxii. 
8;  Jer.  xxxi.  35 — 37;  xxxiii.  20 — 26.  It  is  impossible  to 
find  a  stronger  assurance  that  God  will  not  annihilate  the 
earth  by  a  second  curse,  than  he  has  given  in  regard  to  the 
perpetuity  and  stability  of  his  covenant  with  David.  The 
ministry  of  Elijah  therefore  cannot  fail;  although  John's 
ministry  could  be  allowed  to  fail  of  its  designed  end,  because 
God  had  ulterior  purposes  to  accomplish,  which,  until  after  the 
death  of  Christ,  were  obscurely  revealed. 

But  whether  we  are  to  understand  the  prophet  to  signify 
that  Elias  will  be  sent  in  person  before  the  second  coming  of 
the  Lord,  is,  perhaps,  not  clear.  The  Jews  of  John's  day 
evidently  believed  that  Elias  might  appear  under  another 
name,  or  that  another  prophet  might  be  sent  in  his  place, 
John  i.  21,  but  this  is  a  question  upon  which  we  need  not 
dwell;  because  the  prophecy  respects  not  the  Church,  but 
restored  Israel,  and  the  restitution  of  the  Theocracy  at  the 
close  of  the  present  dispensation  of  the  gospel  among  the 
Gentiles.     It  belongs  to  a  future  order  of  things. 

Matt.  hi.  1,  2.  "In  those  days  came  John  the  Baptist 
preaching,  &c.,  and  saying.  Repent.'' 

Like  the  ancient  prophets  of  Israel,  John  was  a  preacher  of 
repentance.  His  inspiration  was  not  occasional,  but  constant 
from  his  birth,  he  being  at  all  times  under  the  guidance  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  He  was  qualified,  therefore,  without  any  human 
instruction,  see  John  vii.  15,  to  teach  the  people  in  the 
knowledge  of  God,  and  of  their  duties  to  him  and  to  each 
other,  Luke  iii.  10 — 14,  as  well  as  to  show  them  their  sins, 
and  exhort  them  to  amendment  of  life.  From  the  time  the 
Lord  Jesus  came  to  him  for  baptism,  he  appears  to  have  been 

*  Jahn  says  on  this  verse  "nQ  {ne)  non-  tantum  estnegativum,  prohibitivum, 
dissuasorium  et  dubitativum,  sed  notat  etiam  consilium  prcocavendi,  etsi  dein, 
conditione  non  posita,  reapse  consequitur,  quod  prtecavere  debebat,  ut  locus 
noster  prorsus  parallelus  Hos.  ii.  5  docet:  Confer  et  Gen.  iii.  3;  xi,  4;  Jerem. 
xxxviii.  19;  Prov.  ix.  8;  xxvi.  4." 


JOHN'S    EMINENCE.  65 

aware  of  the  issue  of  his  own  ministry,  and  consequently  of  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ,  John  i.  29 — 36 ;  iii.  30.  In  knoAvledge  as 
well  as  in  holiness  then,  he  was  greatly  in  advance  of  the 
apostles,  when  they  were  first  commissioned  to  preach  the 
kingdom,  Matt.  x.  1 — 7.  It  was  not  a  part  of  their  com- 
mission to  preach  repentance  but  only  the  kingdom^  Matt.  x.  7, 
and  although  power  was  given  them  to  work  miracles,  they 
Avere  not  qualified  as  teachers  to  instruct  the  people.  One  of 
them  was  a  wicked  man,  and  yet  he  received  the  same  power 
to  work  miracles  as  the  others,  John  vi.  70;  Matt,  xviii.  3. 
They  were  commanded  to  observe  those  who  sat  in  Moses'  seat, 
Matt,  xxiii.  1 — 3.  Not  so  John  the  Baptist.  He  asserted 
his  prerogative  to  command  and  teach  all,  rulers  and  people 
alike.  Matt.  iii.  7 — 12;  Luke  iii.  7—18.  He  was  God's 
messenger  to  the  nation;  a  preacher  of  repentance,  a  preacher 
of  the  kingdom,  having  divine  authority  to  command  all  to 
come  to  his  baptism,  from  the  Chief  Priest  to  the  lowest  of  the 
people,  Matt.  xxi.  31,  32.  A  greater  than  he  of  the  sons  of 
men  had  never  appeared,  and  none  greater  than  he  will  ever 
appear  till  all  things  shall  be  restored,  and  the  kingdom  of 
God  shall  come.  See  note  on  Acts  iii.  22,  23.  Then  the  least  of 
God's  restored  people  Israel — for  such  we  suppose  to  be  the 
Saviour's  meaning  in  Matt.  xi.  11 — being  made  perfectly  holy, 
and  dwelling  in  a  new  world,  will  be  greater  in  knowledge  and 
power,  and  all  the  other  attributes  of  manhood  than  John; 
and,  consequently,  greater  than  any  other  mere  man  since  the 
fall;  while  the  least  of  the  glorified  saints  will  be  exalted  to  a 
far  more  exceeding  glory  than  Israel  in  the  flesh. 

We  should  greatly  underrate  the  dignity  of  John  were  we  to 
suppose  he  was  inferior  in  grace  or  divine  knowledge  to  the 
chiefest  of  the  apostles,  even  after  they  received  the  inspiration 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Saviour  joins  John  with  himself  as 
in  some  sense  a  co-worker  with  him  in  fulfilling  all  righteous- 
ness. Matt.  iii.  15,  which  shows  the  great  excellence  of  John's 
character  and  oflice.  The  apostles  indeed  were  endowed  with 
different  powers,  suited  to  the  diff'erent  ofiices  they  were  ap- 
pointed to  fill.  They  were  inspired  to  foretell  things  con- 
cerning the  Church,  Avhich  did  not  belong  to  John's  oflice  of 
forerunner.  They  could  also  perform  miracles,  although  it  was 
not  in  this  that  their  greatness  consisted,  Luke  x.  20;  but 
that  John  imdcrstood  the  mystery  of  redemption  throui^h  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ,  and  foresaw  the  unsuccessful  issue  of  his  own 
ministry,  is  plain  from  his  own  words,  John  i.  29,  36 ;  iii.  30. 

These  passages  touching  the  character  and  office  of  John 
are   important,  although  he  was  exclusively  a  minister  of  the 
circumcision,   and    his    ministry  fell  within  the    old  economy, 
9 


66  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

because  erroneous  opinions  on  these  points  have  occasioned  the 
misinterpretation  of  other  Scriptures.* 

John  i.  22,  23.  "Then  thej  said  unto  him,  who  art  thou? 
that  we  may  give  an  answer  to  them  that  sent  us.  What  sayest 
thou  of  thyself?  He  said,  I  am  the  voice  of  one  crying  in  the 
wilderness,  Make  straight  the  way  of  the  Lord,  as  said  the 
prophet  Esaias." 

It  is  said  that  the  Sadducees  rejected  the  Scriptures,  except 
the  Pentateuch ;  and  if  this  opinion  be  correct,  persons  of  that 
sect  would  have  attached  no  importance  to  this  quotation  from 
Isaiah.  Hence,  perhaps,  the  Evangelist  adds,  vs.  24,  that  the 
embassy  was  composed  of  Pharisees,  who  admitted  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  prophet  quoted.  But  it  is  more  important  to 
observe  that  this  question  was  not  put  until  John  had  positively 
affirmed  that  he  was  neither  the  Christ  nor  Elias,  nor  that 
prophet  who  was  to  fulfil  the  office  of  the  one  or  the  other. 
The  avowed  motive  of  the  question  was  to  be  able  to  give  to 
those  who  sent  them  a  full  answer  upon  the  questions  they  had 
proposed,  touching  his  person  and  character.  He  had  told 
them  thus  far,  only  who  he  was  not.  They  wished  him  to 
answer  in  his  own  words,  affirmatively,  who  he  was ;  and  now, 
as  before,  he  answers  according  to  the  intent  of  his  questioners. 
Had  he  said  "I  am  John,  the  son  of  Zacharias,"  Luke  iii.  2, 
he  would  have  told  them  only  what  they  already  knew.  They 
wished  to  know  what  religious  or  prophetical  office  or  function 

*  One  popular  commentator,  after  saying  that  John  was  greater  than  other 
prophets,  remarks  that  "he  that  is  of  inferior  standing  to  him  in  the  Christian 
Church  is  greater  than  he.  The  Christian  economy  is  so  much  in  advance  of 
that  under  which  John  lived  and  acted  that  he  who  is  comparatively  of  low 
rank  among  the  teachers  here  is  greater  than  John,  etc.,  etc.  Behold  the 
dignity  and  excellency  of  a  Sabbath-school  teacher."  Another  popular  com- 
mentator remarks  that  "it  could  hardly  be  affirmed  of  the  obscurest  and  most 
ignorant  Christian,  that  he  had  clearer  views  than  Isaiah  or  John.  But  of  the 
apostles  of  the  Saviour,  of  the  first  preachers  who  were  with  him,  who  heard 
his  instructions,  it  might  be  said  that  they  had  more  correct  apprehensions 
than  any  of  the  ancient  prophets  or  John."  Scott  also  confines  the  comparison 
to  the  apostles  and  the  New  Testament  prophets,  saying,  at  the  same  time, 
that  many  extend  it  to  all  faithful  ministers  of  the  gospel  and  all  true  be- 
lievers. Adam  Clarke  says:  "Now  the  least  in  this  kingdom — the  meanest 
preacher  of  a  crucified,  risen,  and  glorified  Saviour,  was  greater  than  John, 
who  was  not  permitted  to  live  to  see  the  plenitude  of  the  gospel  grace  in  the 
pouring  out  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  Such  remarks  can  only  arise  from  a  great 
misconception  of  John's  character,  inspiration,  and  office.  The  observation  of 
the  Saviour  we  doubt  not  may  be  repeated  at  this  moment  with  exact  truth 
— that  a  greater  than  John  the  Baptist  (Jesus  only  excepted)  hath  not  yet 
arisen ;  nor  will  a,  greater  than  he  arise  till  the  Lord  shall  come  the  second 
time,  and  baptize  all  Israel  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  establish  his  kingdom  in 
manifested  glory  over  the  renewed  earth.  Then,  indeed,  he  that  is  least  in 
that  earthly  kingdom  will  be  greater  than  John  then  was,  while  John,  being 
exalted  to  a  far  exceeding  glory,  will  be  far  greater  than  the  greatest  in  that 
earthly  kingdom  will  then  be. 


PHARISEES'    REJECTION    OF   JOHN.  67 

he  claimed,  and  the  scriptural  warrant  for  his  claim  or  preten- 
sion. His  reply  sets  up  a  claim  at  least  to  a  divine  mission, 
and  shows  his  warrant  for  it ;  and  though  it  was  very  humble, 
when  compared  with  the  dignity  of  Messiah  and  his  office,  he 
was  distinguished  above  all  the  prophets  who  had  previously 
appeared,  in  this  respect,  viz.  that  his  mission  and  ministry  had 
been  expressly  foretold,  Isa.  xl.  3. 

The  Jews  referred  this  passage  and  the  chapter  from  which 
it  is  quoted  to  the  times  of  Messiah,  and  rightly  :  for  so  John 
applied  it.  To  the  same  epoch  they  also  referred  the  prophecy 
of  Malachi,  iv.  5,  6,  concerning  Elijah.  This  answer  of  John, 
therefore,  created  a  difficulty  which  could  not  be  resolved  con- 
sistently with  the  tenets  of  the  learned.  This  will  appear,  if 
we  consider  that  the  Jews  of  that  day  had  no  belief,  or  even 
an  idea,  of  two  advents  of  Messiah,  John  xii.  34.  Indeed, 
they  could  not  believe  in  a  second  advent  or  mission  of  Messiah, 
without  some  foreknowledge  of  his  rejection  by  the  nation,  at 
his  first  appearing.  See  Acts  iii.  17,  21,  and  note  on  Acts 
ii.  14 — 36.  Proceeding  upon  the  assumption  that  Messiah 
would  certainly  be  received  by  the  nation,  at  his  first  coming, 
and  thereupon  immediately  establish  his  kingdom,  they  referred 
this  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  as  well  as  that  in  Malachi  iii.  1,  to 
Elijah,  and  the  times  of  his  mission,  Mai.  iv.  5,  6.  It  was  an 
error  of  interpretation,  yet  too  deeply  rooted  in  their  minds 
to  be  eradicated  by  those  irrefragable  proofs  of  John's  divine 
mission,  which  fully  convinced  the  masses  of  the  people,  Matt, 
xxi.  26.  When,  therefore,  John  denied  that  he  was  Elias,  yet 
claimed  to  be  the  "voice"  prophesied  of  by  Isaiah,  he  divided 
two  prophecies  which,  according  to  their  interpretation,  inspi- 
ration had  joined.  His  pretensions,  therefore,  were  contra- 
dictory, and,  by  his  own  showing,  without  warrant.  "  Upon 
theological  grounds,  then,  which  appeared  to  them  unques- 
tionable, they  not  only  rejected  his  baptism,  Luke  vii.  30; 
Matt,  xxi,  32,  but  altogether  denied  his  divine  mission."  Mark 
xi.  30;  Matt.  xxi.  25. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  this  theological  difficulty  had 
no  effect  upon  the  popular  mind ;  for  although  the  people  did 
not  receive  him  as  Elias,  yet  all  of  them  believed  he  was  a 
prophet,  John  x.  41,  and  had  authority  to  baptize,  Luke  iii.  21. 
Many  Christian  commentators  believe,  with  the  learned  Jews 
of  that  day,  that  these  three  prophecies,  Isa.  xl.  3 ;  Mai.  iii.  1 ; 
iv.  5,  6,  refer  to  one  and  the  same  person,  yet  differ,  not  only 
from  them,  but  from  the  mass  of  the  people,  in  holding  that 
the  last  of  them,  Mai.  iv.  5,  6,  was  fulfilled  in  John  the 
Baptist. 

John  i.  25.  "  And  they  asked  him  and  said  unto  him :  Why 


68  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 

baptizest   thou,  then,  if   thou  be  not  that    Christ,  nor  Elias, 
neither  that  prophet?" 

This  question  furnishes  a  clue  to  some  of  the  opinions  of 
the  learned  Jews  of  that  day  concerning  the  subjects  grouped 
in  it.  The  persons  sent  were,  we  may  presume,  men  of  pru- 
dence and  zeal  for  religion,  conversant  with  the  Scriptures  and 
the  interpretation  put  upon  them  by  the  learned.  Without  doubt 
they  were  selected  from  those  most  competent  to  investigate 
properly,  what  seemed  to  the  Sanhedrim,  the  extraordinary 
pretensions  of  John.  It  was  highly  important  to  have  John's 
pretensions  thoroughly  sifted,  and  if  groundless,  exposed,  owing 
to  the  deep  impression  he  had  made  on  the  popular  mind,  Luke 
iii.  15.  The  chief  point  of  inquiry  was  his  authority  to  baptize, 
not  his  assumption  of  the  office  of  a  religious  teacher.  He  was 
of  the  sacerdotal  race,  and  by  birth  entitled  to  a  priestly 
education  at  Jerusalem.  His  father  had  been  an  officiating 
priest,  and  if  deceased,  as  it  is  probable  he  was,  Luke  i.  18, 
yet  was  still  remembered.  Had  John  assumed  merely  the 
functions  of  an  ordinary  prophet  or  teacher,  there  would  have 
been  nothing  in  his  ministry  at  variance  with  their  national 
history  or  experience.  But  to  baptize  the  nation  implied  the 
near  approach  of  a  great  if  not  a  radical  change  in  the  existing 
institutions,  and  the  establishment  of  Messiah's  kingdom,  which 
the  Scriptures  taught  them  was  the  next  in  order.  Had  he 
been  the  Christ,  or  Elias,  or  that  prophet  foretold  by  Moses, 
Deut.  xviii.  15 — 19,  or,  perhaps  the  meaning  is,  that  prophet 
whose  mission  was  foretold  by  Malachi,  iv.  5,  6,  under  the 
name  of  Elijah,  his  authority  to  baptize  the  nation  in  prepara- 
tion for  the  impending  change  was  conceded,  as  we  infer  from 
the  question;  but  he  had  before  denied  that  he  was  either. 
Hence  the  question  itself  imputed  to  John  a  usurpation  of  the 
sacred  functions  of  another.  That  John  so  understood  the 
question  may  be  inferred  from  his  answer  to  it:  "I  baptize 
with  water,"  and  in  so  doing,  I  do  not  usurp  the  functions  of 
Messiah.  As  if  he  had  said — "Ye  err  greatly  in  supposing 
that  when  Messiah,  or  Elias,  or  that  prophet  comes,  either  will 
perform  the  humble  office  which  I  perform  in  baptizing  you 
ivith  water,  John  iv.  2.  So  far  from  it,  the  only  baptism 
appropriate  to  the  office  of  Messiah  is  of  resistless  energy — 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  of  fire,  Matt.  iii.  11 ;  Luke 
iii.  16,  with  which  Elias,  or  that  prophet  you  speak  of,  if  he 
baptize  at  all,  will  in  someway  be  connected.  See  Luke  ix.  54; 
2  Kings  i.  10,  12.  What  John  adds,  in  vs.  27,  was  adapted, 
if  not  designed,  to  repel  the  implied  charge  of  imposture.  It 
amounts  to  this :  I  seek  nothing  for  myself.  On  the  contrary, 
I  tell  you  that  even  now  there  is  one  among  you  so  far  exalted 


JOHN   PEKFORMED    NO    MIRACLES.  69 

above  me  that  I  am  not  worthy  to  do  the  humblest  service  for 
him.  He  will  appear  when  my  ministry  shall  be  ended,  but  as 
yet  you  know  not  who  he  is." 

AVe  may  also  infer  from  this  question  that  the  learned  among 
the  Jews  believed  Elias  might  appear  under  some  other  name, 
and  such  appears  to  have  been  the  belief  of  the  common 
people,  Matt.  xvi.  14.  They  knew  that  the  Baptist's  proper 
personal  name  was  John,  and  there  was  no  propriety  in  asking 
him  if  he  were  Elias,  unless  they  supposed  that  Elias  might 
appear  under  another  name.  The  question  then,  had  respect 
to  the  reality  of  his  person,  not  to  his  personal  designation; 
and  as  it  was  put  to  him  with  reference  to  the  public  office  he 
was  performing,  it  had  respect  to  the  functions  as  Avell  as  the 
person  of  Elias,  and  in  this  sense  John  answered  it.  Thus 
considered,  his  reply  amounts  to  this :  "  I  am  not  Elias,  in 
name  nor  in  person  nor  in  office,  nor  am  I  the  prophet  ap- 
pointed to  fulfil  the  office  of  Messiah  or  Elias.  I  am  sent  to 
baptize  this  people  tvith  toater,  which  neither  Messiah  nor 
Elias  nor  that  prophet  will  do." 

If  John  were  Elias  in  the  sense  of  the  questioners,  or  in  the 
sense  of  the  Scriptures,  he  could  not  have  answered  "I  am  not 
Elias,"  for  that  means  I  am  not  Elias  in  the  sense  of  the 
Scriptures,  nor  in  the  sense  of  your  question,  nor  in  any  other 
sense  whatever. 

John  x.  41.  "John  did  no  miracle,  but  all  things  that  John 
spake  of  this  man  were  true." 

The  public  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist  was  inseparably 
connected  with  that  of  our  Lord.  Both  had  respect  to  the 
same  kingdom,  the  near  approach  of  which  was  announced  by 
both  in  the  same  terms,  or  nearly.  Yet  they  were  not  concur- 
rent. Matt.  iv.  12,  17;  Mark  i.  14,  and  they  were  in  other 
respects  distinctly  marked — the  one  by  the  baptism  of  the 
nation,  the  other  by  miracles.  If  we  reflect  a  moment  upon 
what  Paul  said  to  the  disciples  at  Ephesus,  Acts  xix.  4,  we 
shall  perceive  that  John's  baptism  had  respect  to  the  Lord 
Jesus  as  his  successor,  in  respect  of  time.  Hence,  John  the 
Evangelist  is  careful  to  say  that  Jesus  did  not  baptize,  even 
during  the  time  of  John's  ministry,  and  in  the  verse  under 
consideration,  he  discloses,  by  way  of  contrast,  the  fact  that 
John  did  no  miracles.  To  an  observer  of  that  day,  the 
contrast  of  their  times  must  have  been  very  striking.  It  was 
designed  to  mark  the  difference  betAveen  the  proximate  approach 
of  the  kingdom  Avhich  John  proclaimed,  and  the  actual  (rrapuuffia) 
lyresence  of  the  kingdom  which  the  miracles  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
proved.  There  was  an  obvious  reason  for  this  arrangement 
which  is  not  sufficiently  considered.      The  miracles  performed 


70  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

by  our  Lord,  attested,  in  the  strongest  manner  possible,  the 
Divine  appointment  of  John's  baptism.  For  suppose  our  Lord 
had  simply  preached  the  kingdom  as  only  near,  or  even  as 
actually  come  in  point  of  time,  Mark  i.  15,  yet,  without 
exhibiting  the  evidence  of  its  presence  by  his  miraculous  works, 
it  would  have  been  adding  only  the  verbal  testimony  of  one 
appearing  to  be  merely  a  man,  to  the  truth  of  John's  proclama- 
tion. Or  suppose  that  he  had  followed  John  simply  as  a 
baptizer  and  preacher  of  the  coming  kingdom,  it  would  have 
tended  rather  to  weaken  than  to  confirm  the  belief  of  the 
nation  in  the  authority  of  John  to  baptize.  For  why,  it  might 
be  inquired,  should  the  nation  be  baptized  again,  if  the 
baptism  of  John  was  heaven-derived?  But  the  miracles  the 
Lord  performed  were  visible,  palpable  evidence  of  such  a 
change  of  times  as  John  proclaimed;  in  other  words,  they 
proved  the  actual  presence  of  the  kingdom  which  John  had 
announced  as  near.  Hence  we  infer  that  the  primary  use  and 
intent  of  our  Lord's  public  miracles  was  retrospective,  namely, 
to  confirm  John's  proclamation,  and  evince,  by  miraculous 
evidence,  his  authority  to  baptize.  The  miracles  which  our 
Lord  wrought,  and  those  which  his  disciples  wrought  during 
their  first  mission.  Matt.  x.  5 — 8,  were  primarily  designed  to 
convince  that  (/eneration  of  Jews,  whom  John  was  sent  to 
baptize,  by  evidence  addressed  to  their  senses,  of  the  actual 
presence  of  the  kingdom  which  John  proclaimed  as  near,  and 
for  which  he  had  baptized  them  with  water. 

Our  Lord's  miracles,  therefore,  fulfilled  their  chief  design, 
whether  the  Jews  of  later  generations  believed  them  or  not. 
Yet  the  destruction  of  their  temple  and  commonwealth,  and 
the  dispersion  of  their  people,  considered  in  the  light  of  the 
prophecies  which  they  do  acknowledge,  ought  to  convince  the 
Jews  of  later  times  that  the  Evangelists,  who  have  recorded 
them  and  also  the  sin  of  their  forefathers  in  rejecting  them, 
are  worthy  of  their  belief.  But  considered  as  evidence  of  the 
Divine  institution  of  the  present  dispensation  of  the  gospel  to  the 
Gentiles,  they  have  no  persuasive  effect  or  force  upon  the  mind 
of  the  unbelieving  Jew.  He  considers  the  whole  of  the  gospels 
as  belonging  to  the  Christian  Church,  although  in  truth  those 
parts  of  them  which  relate  to  the  public  ministry  of  John,  and 
the  public  ministry  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  fall  within  the  Levitical 
economy,  and  would  have  been  received  by  their  forefathers  as 
a  part  of  their  oracles,  had  they  not  rejected  the  kingdom 
which  John  and  the  Lord  Jesus  preached. 

Luke  hi.  20,  21.  "But  Herod  the  Tetrarch  being  reproved, 
&c.,  added  this  above  all,  that  he  shut  up  John  in  prison." 
See  Matt.  iii.  13  ;  Mark  i.  14. 


John's  imprisonment.  71 

If  we  duly  reflect  upon  the  history  of  John  the  Baptist,  it 
will  seem  not  a  little  remarkable  that  his  public  career  was 
closed  by  his  imprisonment — not  by  his  death.  The  whole 
purpose  of  John's  life — existence  we  may  say,  Luke  i.  17, — 
was  to  fulfil  the  office  of  forerunner  of  the  Lord.  We  are  not 
informed  that  any  part  of  it  was  spent  in  the  ordinary  pursuits 
of  life.  From  the  cradle  he  passed  to  the  solitude  of  the 
desert,  Luke  i.  80,  and  his  sustenance  was  the  spontaneous 
productions  of  the  place,  Matt.  iii.  4;  Mark  i.  6.  Even  his 
clothing  was  not  the  product  of  art  and  human  industry,  Matt. 
iii.  4.  Emerging  at  length  from  his  solitude,  without  any  other 
preparation  for  his  office  than  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
he  entered  into  his  public  ministry  and  fully  accomplished  it, 
before  Herod  was  allowed  to  molest  him.  See  Acts  xiii.  25.  The 
remainder  of  his  life — about  eighteen  months  according  to  Light- 
foot — he  spent  in  prison.  But  for  what  end?  Was  no  divine 
purpose  concerned  in  this  event?  Can  we  believe  that  all 
the  other  particulars  of  his  life  were  included  in  the  divine 
arrangement,  and  made  to  serve  some  purpose  in  the  great 
scheme,  while  this  important  event — his  life  in  prison — was  left 
out  ?  Was  it  for  John's  sake  that  his  life  was  thus  prolonged 
after  his  work  was  done,  or  was  it  for  the  sake  of  his  nation? 
Or  was  it  a  necessary  part  of  the  divine  plan,  that  his  life 
should  be  prolonged  during  a  part  of  the  public  ministry  of  the 
Lord  Jesus?  The  following  suggestions  may  throw  some  light 
upon  these  questions,  which  may  seem  to  the  reader  to  be 
curious  rather  than  useful,  yet  are  not  without  their  use. 

The  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist  and  the  public  personal 
ministry  of  our  Lord  among  the  Jews,  both  tended  to  one  and 
the  same  end.  The  nation  was  to  be  tried  by  the  joint  effect  of 
both.  The  ministry  and  testimony  of  John  were  designed  to 
prepare  the  way  for  the  reception  of  the  Lord,  John  i.  31 ; 
V.  33 — 36;  Luke  i.  17,  and  on  the  other  hand,  the  testimony 
of  John  was  to  be  enhanced  and  enforced  by  the  testimony  and 
miracles  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  With  the  design,  therefore,  of 
bringing  to  bear  upon  the  nation,  as  a  means  of  trial,  the 
concurrent  and  accumulated  testimony  of  both,  at  a  time  when 
both  were  among  them  and  might  be  received,  John  was 
preserved  in  prison  awhile,  to  await,  as  it  were,  the  influence  on 
the  public  mind,  of  the  miracles  and  testimony  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  in  his  favour.  As  if  the  Lord  had  said,  "Peradventure 
this  people  will  receive  John  when  they  shall  see  the  wonderful 
works  of  that  Mighty  One,  whose  presence  he  proclaimed." 

Accordingly,  after  John  had  been  several  months  in  prison — 
seven  or  eight  according  to  Lightfoot,  Harm.  §  31 — John  being 
moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  sent  two  of  his  disciples  to  Jesus 


72  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 

with  the  question,  "Art  thou  he  that  should  come,  or  look  we 
for  another?"  Matt.  xi.  3;  Luke  vii.  19.  He  answered  the 
question  by  appealing  to  his  works.  Matt.  xi.  4 — 8 ;  Luke  vii. 
22,  and  then,  upon  the  departure  of  the  disciples,  bore  a  most 
remarkable  testimony  to  the  character  and  office  of  John, 
Matt.  xi.  7 — 13;  Luke  vii.  24 — 31,  concluding  it  with  this  oifer 
or  appeal  to  the  people :  "  And  if  ye  will  receive,  he  is  Elias 
who  was  for  to  come."*  That  is,  if  ye  will  receive  Mm,  he 
shall  be  to  you  the  same  as  the  Elias  foretold  by  the  prophet 
Malachi  iv.  5,  6,  and  all  the  blessings  of  Messiah's  kingdom 
shall  be  immediately  conferred  upon  you  as  a  people.  For  if 
ye  receive  him,  ye  will  receive  me,  and  I  will  gather  you  and 
protect  you  with  the  most  affectionate  care.  See  Matt,  xxiii. 
37;  Luke  xiii.  34;  xix.  41—44;  Ps.  Ixxxi.  13—16;  Acts  i.  6. 

It  was  with  a  view  to  this  transaction,  we  suggest,  that  John's 
life  was  prolonged  in  prison  about  eighteen  months,  during  all 
which  time  this  offer  of  John  by  the  Lord  to  the  people  for 
their  acceptance  continued,  as  it  were,  to  speak  to  them. 
If  the  reader  should  reject  this  explanation,  we  ask  him  what 
purpose  the  life  of  John  in  prison  Avas  designed  to  answer  ? 

Matt.  iv.  12 — 17.  "Now  when  Jesus  heard  that  John  was 
cast  into  prison,"  &c.,  "From  that  time  Jesus  began  to 
preach,"  &c. 

The  ministry  of  John  was  appointed  to  precede  the  ministry 
of  the  Lord  Jesus.  John's  description  of  himself  as  one  going 
before,  implies  as  much.  Matt.  iii.  11;  xi.  10;  John  i.  27; 
Acts  xiii.  25;  Mai.  iii.  1.  Hence  the  fact,  that  Jesus  appeared 
publicly,  as  a  preacher  of  the  kingdom,  as  soon  as  John  was 
cast  into  prison,  implies  that  John's  ministry  was  by  that 
event  fully  ended.  Had  John  been  set  at  liberty,  we  have  no 
reason  to  believe  that  he  would  have  resumed  his  ministry,  for 
the  reasons  already  suggested.  His  life  was  spared  for  a  dif- 
ferent purpose.  See  note  on  Luke  iii.  20,  2L  We  infer  that 
his  principal  work  of  baptizing  had  been  fully  performed.  Luke 
iv.  21.  All  the  people  had  received  his  baptism,  except  those 
who  had  voluntarily  and  wickedly  rejected  it.  Luke  vi.  29,  30. 
The  words  0.710  rore^  "from  that  time,"  in  the  17th  verse,  there- 

*  The  whole  sense  of  this  verse  is  changed  by  supplying  the  word  it.  Neither 
the  Syriac  nor  the  Vulgate  version  supplies  the  omission  at  all.  By  this  inter- 
polation the  word  receive  (ifi^i<r6*i)  is  made  to  signify  believe,  or  give  credit  to 
the  declaration,  which  to  say  the  least  is  an  unusual  sense.  See  Matt.  x.  14, 
40,  41 ;  xviii.  5,  and  Schmidt's  Greek  Concordance,  Si^OjUttt. 

f  These  words  are  employed  several  times  where  tlie  exact  time  of  an  event 
is  meant  to  be  denoted,  Matt.  xvi.  21;  xxvi.  16;  Luke  xvi.  16,  and  it  is  im- 
portant to  notice  the  particiilarity,  in  order  to  apprehend  clearly  and  fully  the 
sense  of  the  writer.  Thus,  from  Matt.  xvi.  21,  we  learn  that  the  Lord  did  not 
speak  to  his  disciples  of  his  approaching  sufferings  and  death  until  the  mystery 


COMMENCEMENT   OF    CIIRIST'S    MINISTRY.  73 

fore  denote  with  precision,  the  commencement  of  the  Lord's 
ministry  and  the  termination  of  John's. 

The  Lord  did  not  begin  to  preach  before,  because  the  times 
appointed  for  the  baptism  of  the  people  had  not  elapsed.  He 
did  not  delay  after,  because  John's  imprisonment  marked  the 
completion  of  the  times  appointed  for  the  national  baptism. 
Hence,  according  to  Mark  i.  15,  the  Lord  commenced  his  pub- 
lic preaching  by  saying:  Tlie  time  is  fulfilled  for  the  coming  of 
the  kingdom,  and  the  evidence  of  the  fact  he  proceeds  imme- 
diately to  exhibit  to  the  people  by  his  miraculous  works.  See 
John'ii.  3,  4;  x.  41. 

Matt.  iv.  17.  From  that  time  Jesus  began  to  preach  and  to 
say,  "Repent,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven" — the  heavens — "is 
at  hand" — hath  come  nigh. 

Our  Lord's  personal  ministry  among  the  Jews  may  be  con- 
sidered under  three  heads  or  functions.  We  may  regard  him 
(1)  either  as  a  preacher  of  the  kingdom,  or  (2)  as  a  preacher  of 
the  law,  or  (3)  in  the  domestic  or  private  relation  of  a  teacher 
of  his  disciples.  The  first  two  of  these  functions  were  public, 
and  he  exercised  them  in  harmony  with  the  economy  of  law, 
Avhich  still  continued  in  force.  Matt.  v.  17;  and  see  note  on 
Matt,  xxvii.  51 — 53;  Luke  xxiii.  45.  His  instructions  to  his 
disciples,  apart  from  the  multitudes,  were  frequently  propheti- 
cal, and  suited  to  the  dispensation  of  grace  which  was  to  follow. 
To  these  he  alluded,  especially  in  his  last  discourse  with  them. 
John  xiv.  26.  This  distinction  is  marked  and  very  important, 
Matt.  xiii.  11;  xvi.  20;  Luke  x.  23,  if  not  indispensable  to 
the  clear  comprehension  of  the  gospels.* 

The  text  under  consideration,  it  is  unnecessary  to  say,  be- 
longs to  our  Lord's  function  or  office  of  preaching  the  kingdom. 
The  import  of  the  proclamation  is  explained  in  the  note  on 
Matt.  iii.  2;  xix.  28;  and  see  note  on  Acts  iii.  21.  To  the 
same  function  we  refer  (1)  the  act  of  calling  and  commissioning 
the  apostles  to  preach  the  kingdom,  and  conferring  upon  them 
the  power  to  perform  miracles,  in  proof  of  the  proclamation. 

of  the  incarnation  was  revealed  to  Peter.  But  (uto  tote)  from  that  time  forth 
he  began  to  show  unto  his  disciples  the  mystery  of  his  death  and  resurrection, 
which  were  next  in  order.  Matt.  xvii.  22,  23;  xx.  17 — 19.  From  Matt.  xxvi. 
IG,  we  learn,  that  from  the  time  Judas  covenanted  secretly  with  the  priests  to 
betray  his  Master,  he  was  continually  watching  for  an  opportunity  to  fulfil  liis 
part  of  the  agreement,  and  earn  the  promised  bribe.  Luke  xvi.  Hi  proves,  that 
the  commencement  of  John's  ministry,  in  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius  Ctesar, 
was  an  epoch  in  the  history  of  the  nation.  A  new  order  of  things  then  com- 
menced, and  new  responsibilities  attached.  Matt.  iii.  10. 

*  The  reader  will  find  great  advantage  in  assorting  and  arranging  the  mat- 
ter of  the  four  Gospels  according  to  this  plan  of  distribution.  It  may  be  done 
in  parallel  columns,  in  the  order  of  time,  blending,  however,  the  four  Evan- 

10 


74  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

Matt.  iv.  18— 22;.x.  1—8;  Luke  ix.  1,  2;  x.  1—17.  (2)  The 
public  miracles  of  our  Lord,  Matt.  iv.  23 — 25,  and  the  miracles 
performed  by  the  apostles  under  their  first  commission.  (3)  The 
parables  or  similitudes  of  the  kingdom  Avhich  were  publicly  de- 
livered. Matt.  xiii.  24—34;  xxi.  33—44;  xxii.  1—14;  Luke 
xix.  11 — 27.  These  the  reader  will  regard  as  examples.  He 
will  find  other  passages  which  belong  to  the  same  category. 

Matt.  iv.  23,  24.  "  And  Jesus  went  about  all  Galilee  teach- 
ing in  their  synagogues,  and  preaching  the  gospel  of  the  king- 
dom, and  healing  all  manner  of  sickness,  and  all  manner  of 
disease  among  the  people;  and  his  fame  went  throughout  all 
Syria,  and  they  brought  unto  him  all  sick  people  that  were 
taken  with  divers  diseases  and  torments,  and  those  that  were 
possessed  with  devils,  and  those  that  were  lunatic,  and  those 
that  had  the  palsy,  and  he  healed  them." 

The  miracles  of  our  Lord  which  have  been  circumstantially 
recorded,  are  about  forty  in  number,  but  lie  performed  many 
more  which  are  referred  to,  as  in  these  verses,  only  in  general 
terms.  John  xx.  30;  xxi.  25;  xii.  37.  They  may  be  distri- 
buted into  several  kinds  or  classes,  according  to  their  nature; 
such  as  (1)  miracles  of  healing,  (2)  of  raising  the  dead,  (3)  of 
casting  out  devils,  (4)  of  multiplying  food,  (5)  miracles  of 
poAver  in  suspending  or  controlling  the  laws  and  powers  of 
nature,  (6)  miracles  of  power  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  (7)  the 
transfiguration  of  his  person,  (8)  the  miracle  of  conferring  upon 
his  apostles  the  power  to  work  miracles,  (9)  the  miraculous 
exertion  of  power  over  the  oflBcers,  soldiers,  priests,  and  others 
who  apprehended  him,  (10)  to  these  may  be  added  the  miracles 
which  attended  his  death  and  resurrection. 

Those  of  the  Lord's  miracles  which  were  publicly  wrought  in 
proof  of  the  proclamation  of  the  kingdom,  John  v.  36,  for  the 
most  part  belonged  to  the  first,  second,  third,  and  fourth  classes 
before  mentioned.  They  are  alluded  to,  except  the  fourth,  in 
general  terms,  in  the  answer  which  he  sent  to  John  the  Baptist. 
Matt.  xi.  4,  5.  These  were  part  of  his  public  instruction  to 
the  people.  They  were  such  works  as  the  prophets  foretold  the 
Messiah  should  perform,  Isa.  xxix.  18,  19;  xxxv.  5,  6,  and 
consequently  notes  or  marks  by  which  the  people  might  learn 
his  claim  to  that  character.  John  x.  25;  xv.  24.  The  miracles 
of  the  fifth,  sixth,  seventh,  and  eighth  classes  were  performed 
in  the  presence  of  the  disciples,  or  some  of  them  only.  These, 
therefore,  may  be  considered  as  a*  part  of  the  private  discipline 
of  the  apostles,  and  designed  to  qualify  them  for  the  offices  they 
were  to  fulfil  in  the  approaching  dispensation.  See  2  Peter  i. 
17,  18;  John  i.  14.  The  others  were  performed  with  some 
special  design. 


SERMON   ON   THE   MOUNT.  75 

A  few  of  the  miracles  mentioned  by  John,  (ii.  iii.  2;  iv.  50,) 
■were  performed  before  the  imprisonment  of  John  the  Baptist, 
and  of  course  before  the  Lord  entered  publicly  upon  his  minis- 
try. These,  therefore,  belong  to  the  category  of  private  instruc- 
tion, rather  than  his  public  functions. 

Many  of  our  Lord's  miracles  appear  to  have  been  wrought 
spontaneously  on  his  part,  that  is,  without  the  prayer  or  request 
of  those  who  received  the  benefit  of  them,  or  the  exercise  of 
faith  on  their  part;  see  Luke  vii.  11 — 15,  John  v.  1 — 9; 
while  others  Avere  wrought  in  answer  to  the  request  or  entrea- 
ties of  those  who  sought  the  benefit.  In  these  instances  faith 
was  the  indispensable  prerequisite  or  condition  of  the  gift ;  see 
note  on  Acts  iii.  16.  The  miracles  which  the  Lord  wrought 
through  the  apostles  under  their  first  commission,  Matt.  x.  8, 
prove  this  distinction.  They  were  not  commissioned  to  teach 
the  people,  Matt.  x.  7,  nor  were  they  capable  of  doing  so ;  nor 
were  they  required  to  make  any  distinction  between  those  upon 
whom  they  were  to  exert  their  miraculous  powers,  but  to  give 
to  all  as  freely  as  they  had  received,  Matt.  x.  8. 

The  miracles  mentioned  in  the  verses  under  consideration, 
appear  to  have  been  performed  without  solicitation.  In  the 
eighth  an"d  subsequent  chapters  of  this  Gospel  the  Evangelist 
gives  instances  of  miracles  wrought  through  the  faith  of  those 
who  were  healed  or  of  others.  These  distinctions  are  important, 
and  they  are  stated  in  this  place  with  a  view  to  particular 
remarks  hereafter. 

Matt.  v.  vi.  vii.  These  chapters  are  to  be  referred  to  our 
Lord's  functions  as  a  preacher  of  the  law.  Taken  in  connec- 
tion with  the  preceding  chapters,  they  form  a  complete  proof 
of  his  Messiahship,  and  for  that  purpose  they  are  introduced  in 
this  place,  according  to  the  method  of  the  Evangelist,  explained 
in  the  note  on  Matt.  i.  1.  It  is  purely  a  legal  discourse, 
adapted  to  the  economy  of  law  then  in  force,  without  a  single 
allusion  to  the  way  of  salvation  by  grace,  through  faith  in 
Christ,  but  characterized  by  a  Divine  elevation  and  purity, 
which  has  commanded  the  admiration  even  of  Deistical  writers. 
It  is  in  fact  the  perfect  law  of  the  kingdom  he  preached,  verse 
48,  applied  to  men  in  the  state  of  apostasy,  as  most  of  the 
particular  precepts  prove.  Verses  11,  12,  21,  22,  23,  31,  32, 
39,  40,  &c. 

It  is  remarkable  too,  that  although  the  Lord  did  not  assume 
the  title  or  character  of  Christ,  he  represented  himself  as 
having  come  to  fulfil  the  law,  verse  17,  and  as  one  who  would 
be  addressed.  Lord,  Lord,  in  the  day  of  judgment,  having  power 
to  receive  into,  and  exclude  from,  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  vii. 
21,  23.    The  miracles  he  had  performed  proved  his  right  to  the 


76  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

character  he  claimed,  which  was  confirmed  by  the  sublimity  and 
excellence  of  his  doctrine.  The  people  were  astonished  at  the 
majesty  of  his  demeanor  and  the  authority  with  which  he 
delivered  his  precepts.  The  particulars  of  this  discourse  we 
do  not  propose  to  comment  upon,  except  a  few  which  cast  light 
upon  some  topics  which  will  be  brought  to  the  notice  of  the 
reader  hereafter. 

Matt.  v.  17.  "Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy"  (dis- 
solve the  obligations  of)  "the  law  or  the  prophets.  I  am  not 
come  to  destroy  but  to  fulfil"  the  law  and  the  prophets. 

The  burden  of  the  prophets,  we  are  taught  by  St.  Peter,  is 
the  restitution  of  all  things.  Acts  iii.  21,  24;  see  note.  Their 
predictions  extend  to  the  whole  futurity  of  the  earth,  and  of 
man  as  the  inhabitant  thereof,  Ps.  cxv.  16 ;  xxxvii.  11 ;  Matt. 
V.  5.  The  law  was  ordained  as  a  means  to  that  end,  Heb.  x.  1 ; 
Col.  ii,  17 ;  Gal.  iii.  19 ;  and  for  that  reason,  the  whole  of  it, 
not  excepting  its  minutest  requirements,  must  be  fulfilled. 
Hence  our  Lord  added  with  a  solemn  asseveration — 

Verse  18.  "  Till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle 
shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law  till  all  be  fulfilled." 

These  verses,  therefore  are  very  comprehensive,  and  to 
understand  their  meaning  fully,  we  must  be  able  to  compre- 
hend not  only  all  that  the  prophets  have  foretold,  but  all  that 
the  law,  in  all  its  parts,  moral,  ceremonial,  and  typical,  fore- 
shadows or  requires.  For  the  law  is  not  only  preceptive  but 
predictive;  and  its  preceptive  parts,  as  before  observed,  are 
subordinate  to  the  predictive,  that  is,  in  the  sense  of  a  means 
to  an  end.  Hence  they  are  often  spoken  of  conjunctively,  as 
in  this  place.  See  Matt.  xi.  13 ;  Luke  xvi.  16.  Hence,  too, 
the  sufferings  of  Christ,  which  were  typically  shown  by  the 
sacrifices  appointed  by  the  law,  are  joined  with  the  universal 
glory  that  should  follow,  which  the  prophets  so  much  delight  to 
dwell  upon,  1  Pet.  i.  11.  The  institution  of  the  Sabbath  and 
of  the  sabbatical  year.  Lev.  xxv.,  Pent,  xv.,  and  the  duties 
connected  therewith,  is  another  example.  The  separation  of 
the  seventh  year  as  a  rest,  and  the  blessing  of  God  on  the  sixth 
year,  typically  set  forth  good  things  to  come,  which  were  more 
explicitly  announced  by  the  prophets,  Heb.  iv.  4,  9. 

For  these  reasons,  we  do  not  regard  these  words  of  the 
Saviour  as  intended  to  intimate  merely  a  change  of  the  Jewish 
ritual,  or  the  abolition  of  ordinances  and  the  institution  of  a 
more  spiritual  worship,  John  iy.  23,  although  these  were 
included,  but  as  having  respect  to  his  perfected  work,  when  he 
shall  have  fulfilled  all  things  written  in  the  law  and  in  the 
prophets  and  the  Psalms  concerning  himself,  Luke  xxiv.  44 ;  see 
1  Cor.  XV.  24 — 28.     Yet  as  the  fulfilling  of  the  law  and  the 


PROHIBITION    OP    OATHS.  77 

prophets  was  to  be  accomplished  through  the  sufferings  and 
death  of  Christ,  these  words  concealed  a  mystery,  which  could 
be  understood  only  by  subsequent  events  and  the  teachings  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  through  the  apostles,  after  the  ascension  and 
glorification  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

According  to  the  foregoing  interpretation  of  these  verses, 
the  prophecies  concerning  the  restoration  and  conversion  of 
Israel,  and  the  establishment  of  Messiah's  kingdom  in  outward 
and  visible  glory  over  the  whole  earth,  were  within  the  Saviour's 
meaning.  See  notes  on  Matt.  ii.  18,  citing  Jer.  xxxi.  15; 
Luke  xxiv.  25,  26:  Acts  iii.  19,  21 — 23.  For  these  were 
among  the  great  things  which  the  prophets  had  foretold.  We 
add,  that  even  now,  he  is  as  really  and  truly  fulfilling,  from  his 
mediatorial  throne,  the  prophecies  concerning  himself  as  when 
he  was  a  man  of  sorrows  on  the  earth. 

In  explaining  the  words  of  the  Saviour,  especially  those 
"which  respect  his  office  and  work,  the  largest  sense  we  can  con- 
ceive of  falls  immeasurably  below  the  fulness  of  his  own  con- 
ception. By  not  attending  to  this  consideration,  (which  may 
be  safely  assumed  as  a  rule  of  interpretation,)  we  fail  of  much 
of  the  instruction  we  might  otherwise  receive.  Against  error 
arising  from  defective  views  of  Divine  truth,  we  should  ever 
be  upon  our  guard;  because  from  such  often  spring  errors  of 
perversion,  and  the  denial  of  other  important  if  not  essential 
truths  which  are  plainly  revealed. 

Matt.  v.  34.  "  But  I  say  unto  you,  Swear  not  at  all;  neither 
by  heaven,  for  it  is  God's  throne ;  nor  by  the  earth,  for  it  is 
his  footstool;  neither  by  Jerusalem,  for  it  is  the  city  of  the 
Great  King."  Ps.  xlviii.  2. 

The  institution  of  the  oath  is  a  proof  and  a  consequence  of 
man's  apostasy  from  God.  If  all  men  were  perfectly  holy,  and 
the  will  of  God  done  universally  by  all  on  earth,  as  it  is  in 
heaven,  no  purpose  or  occasion  to  be  served  by  an  oath  could 
arise.  A  man's  word  would  be  as  sure  a  warrant  for  belief  as 
his  oath.  Can  we  suppose  that  the  holy  beings  who  surround 
the  throne  of  God  confirm  their  communications  to  each  other 
by  an  oath,  or  need  to  do  so? 

The  necessity  of  an  oath  for  confirmation^  Heb.  vi.  16, 
Cometh  from  the  evil,  or  deceitfulness,  of  men's  natures,  and 
this  appears  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  Saviour  in  the  thirty- 
seventh  verse.  But  the  law  of  the  kingdom,  of  which  this  pre- 
cept is  a  part,  requires  of  men  that  they  should  bo  perfect  in 
their  natures  and  conduct,  even  as  God  himself  is  perfect,  JNIatt. 
V.  48.  If  they  were  such,  we  repeat,  they  could  have  no  occa- 
sion to  swear  at  all.  But  because  men  do  not  and  cannot  fulfil 
the  law  of  God's  kingdom,  by  reason  of  their  sinful  natures, 


78  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

the  solemn  oath,  as  well  as  other  departures  from  the  strict 
requirements  of  this  law,  Matt.  xix.  8,  see  Acts  xvii.  30,  were 
permitted  to  them  in  their  fallen  condition,  until  the  time  of  the 
reformation  or  restitution  of  all  things  in  the  kingdom  come. 
Even  God  himself,  in  condescension  to  the  weakness  of  men 
and  the  habitual  mistrust  of  their  natures,  which  sprino-s  from 
their  fallen  condition,  has  confirmed  his  own  Avord  with  an  oath, 
though  it  is  impossible  for  him  to  deceive,  Heb.  vii.  20 — 28; 
Luke  i.  73;    Acts  ii.  30. 

We  shall  not  apprehend  the  force  or  application  of  this  pre- 
cept and  of  some  others  contained  in  this  sublime  discourse, 
unless  we  regard  our  Lord  as  preaching  or  declaring  the  law  of 
the  holy,  heavenly  kingdom,  which  he  taught  his  disciples  to 
pray  for,  as  yet  to  come.  As  a  rule  of  duty  it  is  now  and  ever 
will  be  binding,  because  men  are  even  now  and  ever  will  be 
bound  to  be  perfect.  But  as  a  rule  of  practice  it  was  not 
enforced  during  the  Levitical  economy,  nor  was  it  designed  to 
be  under  the  present  Christian  dispensation,  as  some  have  sup- 
posed. According  to  this  distinction  we  explain  James  v.  12. 
Judicial  oaths  are  necessary  to  the  well-being  and  orderly 
government  of  mankind  in  their  present  fallen  and  imperfect 
state.  But  even  these,  not  less  than  all  profane  oaths,  Avill  not 
be  allowed  when  the  kingdom  of  God  shall  be  established  on 
earth.  The  judicial  affirmation  appears  to  be  as  much  within 
the  spirit  of  this  precept  as  the  oath. 

Matt.  VI.  9.  "Our  Father  Avhich  art  in  heaven,"  (7rar£/> 
■^[xcov  6  iv  TocQ  ohpavocc;.  In  the  original  Greek,  as  well  as 
in^  the  Latin  Vulgate,  we  find  the  plural  heavens,  which  our 
critics,  with  general,  if  not  one  consent,  consider  a  Hebraism. 
It  is  suggested,  however,  that  the  plural  is  here  used  with  the 
design  to  convey  an  allusion  to  the  omnipresence  of  the  Father. 
By  heavens  we  are  to  understand  the  whole  creation.  Gen.  i.  1, 
the  universal  system  of  suns  and  planets  established  in  their 
orders,  in  illimitable  space ;  and  we  address  the  Father  as  filling 
them  all  by  his  presence,  and,  of  course,  as  present  with  us. 
These  form  the  Father's  {ocxia  John  xiv.  2,)  house  or  dwelling 
place.  See  Camerarius  and  Theophylact  on  John  xiv.  2. 
The  same  allusion  is  conveyed  in  Heb.  iii.  4,  "  Every  house  is 
builded  by  some  one,  but  he  that  built  all  things" — all  worlds, 
as  a  house  or  dwelling  place  for  himself — "is  God."  The  same 
designation  or  description  of  the  Father,  occurs  frequently  in  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew,  see  v.  16,  45,  48;  vi.  1,  9;  vii.  11,  21;  x. 
32,  33;  xii.  50;  xviii.  10,  and  always  with  evident  allusion  to 
the  same  Divine  attribute.  The  word  is  also  used  by  him  in 
the  singular,  see  vi.  10,  20,  when  no  such  reference  is  intended, 
or  where  the  limited  nature  of  the  subject  forbids  the  plural 


THE    EARTH   AS   A   DWELLING-PLACE.  79 

sense.  To  call  such  expressions  Ilehraisms  does  not  signify 
much.  The  Jew  might  with  equal  propriety  call  our  form  (in 
the  singular)  a  Gentilism.  The  question  is,  which  form  of 
expression  is  best  adapted  to  the  nature  of  the-  subject,  and 
most  accurately  sets  forth  the  idea  intended  to  be  signified? 
If  it  should  be  said  that  the  ancient  Hebrews  had  no  adequate 
or  correct  idea  of  astronomy,  it  may  be  conceded.  But  the 
■words  of  Scripture  were  all  dictated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
the  words  under  consideration  were  uttered  by  him  who  made 
all  things,  and  certainly  had  no  need  of  the  teachings  of  human 
wisdom  or  science. 

Matt.  VI.  10.  "Thy  kingdom  come;  thy  will  be  done  on 
earth  as  it  is  in  heaven." 

These  petitions  are  very  comprehensive.  They  imply  much 
more  than  most  who  repeat  them  suppose.  At  the  time  they 
were  dictated  they  implied  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ, 
his  resurrection  and  ascension  to  glory:  for  these  were  the 
divinely  appointed  means  for  restoring  the  kingdom  of  God  to 
this  earth.  They  still  imply  the  filling  up  and  completion 
of  his  elect  church  and  the  second  coming  of  the  Lord  to  de- 
stroy the  man  of  sin  and  purge  the  earth  of  its  abominations. 
But,  what  we  wish  especially  to  remark,  they  are  conclusive 
evidence  of  God's  determinate  purpose  and  counsel.  The 
Saviour  certainly  would  not  not  have  dictated  petitions  for 
things  which  the  Father  had  not  designed  to  accomplish,  or 
rather  had  designed  never  to  accomplish.  See  Acts  xv.  18. 
We  conclude  then,  from  this  prayer,  that  the  curse  of  God 
shall  be  removed  from  the  earth.  The  creature — physical 
nature,  all  the  irrational  tribes,  as  well  as  man — shall  be 
delivered  from  the  bondage  of  the  curse,  the  kingdom  of  Satan 
be  destroyed,  and  mankind,  as  inhabitants  of  this  earth,  will 
be  restored  to  perfect  holiness  and  communion  with  God. 
Less  than  these  cannot  give  reality  to  these  petitions.  We 
learn  from  them  also  the  largeness,  the  perfection,  and  the 
glory  of  the  Saviour's  work.  What  orb  in  the  universe  will  be 
more  glorious  than  this,  when  these  petitions  shall  be  fully 
granted?  Will  He  then,  afterwards,  annihilate  or  utterly 
destroy  it  with  another  curse?  Mai.  iv.  6.  Why  this,  rather 
than  any  other,  in  which  his  will  is  done  as  perfectly  as  in 
heaven,  where  his  throne  is?  This  petition,  then,  proves  also 
the  perpetuity  of  the  earth  as  a  dwelling-place  for  man.  Matt. 
V.  5,  Ps.  cxv.  16. 

Matt.  viii.  2,  3.  "  And  behold  a  leper  came  and  worshipped 
him,  saying.  Lord,  if  thou  wilt,  thou  canst  make  rac  clean. 
And  Jesus  put  forth  his  hand  and  touched  him,  saying,  I  will : 
Be  thou  clean." 


80  NOTES  ON   SCRIPTURE. 

The  miracles  mentioned  in  chap.  iv.  23,  appear  to  have  been 
wrought  by  the  Saviour  of  his  own  accord,  without  having  been 
asked  to  perform  'them.  See  John  v.  7,  13,  14.  The  imme- 
diate and  necessary  effect  of  them  was,  to  spread  his  fame, 
and  induce  others  from  far  and  near  to  bring  their  sick  to  him 
for  cure,  iv.  24.  No  mention,  however,  is  made  of  the  faith 
of  those  whom  he  healed,  nor  do  we  suppose  it  was  demanded 
ifi  all  cases  as  a  prerequisite.  They  were  the  appointed 
proofs  of  the  presence  {7ia[)ooaca)  of  the  kingdom  which  the 
Lord  preached,  see  Matt.  xi.  4,  6,  John  xv.  24,  and  they  are 
mentioned  in  almost  immediate  connection  with  his  proclama- 
tion. It  was  necessary  that  the  proofs  should  be  exhibited, 
irrespectively  of  the  faith  or  worthiness  of  those  who  received 
the  benefit  of  them,  John  ii.  3;  v.  4 — 8,  Luke  vii.  11 — 15, 
and  in  many  instances,  no  doubt,  were  so.  It  was  with  this 
view,  as  we  suppose,  the  Evangelist  mentioned,  in  general 
terms,  the  miracles  of  the  Lord,  in  the  place  just  referred  to. 
In  this  chapter  he  resumes  the  subject  of  miracles,  not  merely 
as  a  proof  of  the  presence  of  the  kingdom,  but  for  the  further 
purpose  of  proving  the  power  of  faith  in  the  scheme  of  redemp- 
tion. The  observation  is  also  important,  as  showing  the 
method  or  plan  of  the  Evangelist.    See  note  on  Matt.  i.  1. 

The  miracle  recorded  in  these  verses  was  not  publicly  per- 
formed, nor  was  it  intended  as  a  public  proof  to  the  people ; 
for  the  leper  was  commanded  not  to  tell  it  to  any  man.  The 
motive  of  it  was  mercy  to  the  leper,  and  the  means  or  medium 
of  it  was  the  leper's  faith.  See  ix.  23 — 29.  This  is  a  new 
topic,  and  it  is  proper  in  this  place  to  suggest  some  consider- 
ations, which  are  applicable  to  all  such  cases. 

The  effects  of  faith,  in  the  theological  sense,  are  wholly  of  a 
spiritual  nature.  They  are  to  be  sought  for  in  the  soul  of  him 
who  exercises  it.  This  limitation  of  the  power  of  faith  is  a 
natural  consequence  of  the  cessation  of  miracles;  for  the  out- 
ward visible,  or  rather  physical  effects  of  faith,  are  no  longer,  or 
at  most  very  seldom,  seen.  Yet  this  is  a  very  imperfect  repre- 
sentation of  the  power  of  faith,  and  of  the  ends  which  it  is 
designed  to  serve  in  the  world  of  redemption.  The  miracles  of 
healing  wrought  through  faith,  are  so  many  examples  of  its 
physical  or  outward  effects  upon  the  bodies  of  men,  and  the 
Lord  repeatedly  ascribes  to  faith  a  power  over  material  nature, 
Matt.  xvii.  20;  xxi.  21;  Mark  xi.  22,  23;  Luke  xvii.  6;  see 
1  Cor.  xiii.  2;  Heb.  xi.  29,  30.  .  It  is  in  fact  the  power,  or, 
what  amounts  to  the  same  thing,  the  established  medium  for 
the  transmission  of  Divine  power,  in  the  renovation  of  the  whole 
nature  of  man,  of  his  body,  as  well  as  of  his  soul.  By  faith 
Enoch  was  translated,  that  he  should  not  see  death,  Heb.  xi.  5, 


THE    OFFICE    OF  FAITH   IN   MIRACLES.  81 

and  by  their  faith  the  bodies  of  those  of  the  Lord's  people  who 
shall  be  alive  at  his  coming,  will  be  changed  into  conformity 
with  his  glorious  body,  and  be  caught  up  to  meet  him.  1  Cor. 
XV.  51;  Philip,  iii.  21;  1  Thess.  iv.  17.  By  faith  (we  mean  by 
the  term,  an  abiding  and  implicit,  confidence  in,  and  reliance 
upon  the  Saviour)  will  the  souls  of  departed  saints  be  invested 
with  bodies  of  glory  and  power  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  their 
completed  regeneration  at  the  day  of  the  Lord's  coming;  (see 
foot-note  on  Acts  ii.  47  ;)  and  by  the  same  means  will  tbeir 
union  to  him,  as  their  Head,  be  for  ever  maintained.  Thus 
considered,  faith,  or  that  principle  [affectio  animce)  which  has 
been  described,  (call  it  confidence,  reliance  upon,  or  trust  in 
Christ,  for  all  the  soul  hopes  for  or  desires,  as  the  reader 
pleases,)  is  a  principle  or  law,  or  an  established  medium  for  the 
transmission  or  action  of  Divine  power  in  the  work  and  world  of 
redemption,  as  really  so  as  what  we  call  gravitation  is  an  estab- 
lished law,  or  rule  of  action  in  the  universe  of  material  nature; 
and  one  lesson  these  miracles  of  healing  were  designed  to  incul- 
cate is,  that  as  the  bodily  infirmities  and  sicknesses  of  men 
were  cured  through  their  faith  in  Jesus,  so  by  the  same  means 
their  bodies  of  sin  and  death  will  be  transformed  into  bodies  of 
life  and  immortal  glory  at  the  Lord's  coming. 

It  is  not  an  objection  to  this  view  of  the  uses  and  effects  of 
faith  that  its  first  operation  is  upon  the  soul,  in  which  the 
work  of  regeneration  begins.  In  its  source,  faith  is  a  grace,  or 
a  gift  of  God — a  medium  of  connection  between  the  soul  and 
God,  through  Christ,  and  a  means  of  spiritual  benefit  in  this 
life,  even  although  no  other  should  be  received.  These,  how- 
ever, are  its  elementary  uses  or  benefits.  Its  full  power,  as  a 
law,  will  be  developed  only  in  the  world  of  redemption,  when 
the  glorified  saint,  having  been  made  one  Avith  Christ,  by  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  working  through  this  medium  or 
means,  will  find  that  not  one  jot  or  tittle  shall  fail,  of  all  the 
Lord  has  said  concerning  the  power  of  faith.  Matt.  xvii.  20; 
xxi.  21;  Mark  xi.  22,  23. 

Erasmus  regarded  this  miracle  as  teaching,  by  a  figure,  from 
whence,  and  by  what  faith,  those  diseased  with  the  leprosy  of 
soul  should  seek  a  remedy.*  But  the  typical  import,  as  we 
conceive,  respects  the  body,  and  that  perfect  cure  or  relief 
from  mortality  and  sin  which  it  shall  receive  from  the  Lord, 
through  faith  at  his  coming.  It  yields  the  lesson  Erasmus 
derived  from  it,  but  its  typical  import  is  prophetical  of  other 
and  greater  things. 

*  Tj'po  quodam  docturus  eos,  qui  lepra,  laborarent  animorum,  uude  et  (|via 
fide  deberent  remedium  petere."     Paraplirasis  in  loco. 

11 


82  NOTES   ON    SCRIPTURE. 

Matt.  viii.  5 — 13.  "And  when  Jesus  was  entered  Into 
Capernaum,  there  came  unto  him  a  centurion,  beseeching  him, 
and  saying,  Lord,  my  servant  lieth  at  home  sick  of  the  palsy, 
grievously  tormented.  And  Jesus  said  unto  him,  I  will  come  and 
heal  him.  The  centurion  answered  and  said,  Lord,  I  am  not 
worthy  that  thou  shouldst  come  under  my  roof;  but  speak  the 
word  only,  and  my  servant  shall  be  healed.  For  I  am  a  man 
under  authority,  having  soldiers  under  me:  and  I  say  to  this 
man.  Go,  andhegoeth;  and  to  another,  Come,  and  he  cometh; 
and  to  my  servant,  Do  this,  and  he  doeth  it.  When  Jesus  heard 
it,  he  marvelled,  and  said  to  them  that  followed,  Verily  I  say 
unto  you,  I  have  not  found  so  great  faith,  no,  not  in  Israel. 
And  I  say  unto  you,  That  many  shall  come  from  the  east  and 
w^est  and  shall  sit  down  with  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob, 
in  the  kingdom  of  heaven:  but  the  children  of  the  kingdom 
shall  be  cast  into  outer  darkness;  there  shall  be  weeping  and 
gnashing  of  teeth.  And  Jesus  said  unto  the  centurion,  Go  thy 
way ;  and  as  thou  hast  believed,  so  be  it  done  unto  thee.  And 
his  servant  was  healed  in  the  self-same  hour."  See  Luke 
vii.  1—10. 

The  miracle  we  have  just  considered  was  performed  on  a 
Jewish  leper,  in  answer  to  his  own  prayer  of  faith.  That 
which  the  Evangelist  has  recorded  in  these  verses,  was  wrought 
through  the  faith  of  a  Gentile,  not  upon  himself  but  upon 
another  person.  The  reason  for  introducing  the  account  of  it 
in  this  place,  probably  was  to  show  a  diversity  of  the  operation 
of  faith,  and  to  furnish  another  illustration  of  its  power. 
It  was  a  favour  shown  to  the  centurion,  though  a  stranger  to 
Israel,  in  answer  to  his  faith.  This  is  expressly  taught.  "As 
thou  hast  believed,  so  be  it  done  unto  thee,''  verse  13.  We  are 
not  told  that  the  servant  exercised  faith,  or  was  even  conscious 
of  what  his  Master  was  doing  in  his  behalf.  In  this  particular, 
it  is  like  that  wrought  upon  the  daughter  of  the  Syrophenician 
woman.  Matt.  xv.  22—28;  Mark  vii.  24—30.  These  ex- 
amples teach,  that  in  the  economy  of  the  kingdom,  the  faith  of 
one  person  may  be  made  the  means  of  conveying  blessings  to 
another,  who  may  not  be  capable  of  exercising  the  faith  ne- 
cessary to  receive  them.  The  raising  of  Jairus's  daughter, 
Matt.  ix.  18;  Mark  v.  35,  36;  Luke  viii.  41,  50,  is  an 
eminent  example  of  this  power  or  operation  of  faith,  and  of  the 
diffusiveness  of  its  benefits.  James  v.  15.  This  principle  is  fully 
understood  and  recognized  by  the  Church,  in  respect  to  spiritual 
blessings.  But  the  typical  import  of  these  bodily  cures,  as 
intimated  at  the  end  of  the  last  note,  suggests  another  lesson. 
In  the  day  of  the  Lord's  coming  to  receive  his  living  elect, 
1  Thess.  iv.  11,  who  can  say  what  numbers  will  not  receive 


CHRIST'S   BEARING   OUR    INFIRMITIES.  83 

eternal  blessings  through  the  fiiith  of  others?  Pious  parents, 
surrounded  by  groups  of  children,  see  Mark  v.  42,  -whom  they 
have  dedicated  to  God  by  baptism,  and  for  whom  they  daily 
and  hourly  oflFer  the  prayer  of  faith — will  these  be  separated? 
the  parents  taken  and  their  little  ones  left?  Rather  will  not 
the  prayer  of  faith,  like  that  of  the  centurion,  the  Syro- 
phenician  woman,  and  Jairus,  be  heard  and  answered  ?  Heb. 
xi.  7. 

The  faith  of  the  centurion  gave  our  Lord  occasion  to  refer  in 
general  terms  to  coming  events.  His  public  allusions  to  the 
rejection  of  the  Jews  and  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  were 
comparatively  few  and  indistinct,  especially  towards  the  begin- 
ning of  his  ministry.  As  he  was  about  to  close  it,  some  of  his 
parables  very  significantly  set  them  forth.  See  Matt.  xxii. 
1—10;  xxi.  33—44. 

Matt.  viii.  17.  "That  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken 
by  Esaias  the  prophet,  saying,  Himself  took  our  infirmities,  and 
bare  our  sicknesses." 

This  is  a  quotation  from  Isa.  liii.  4.  The  word  translated 
infirmities  is  rendered  {h.p.apTW.'^)  sins  by  the  LXX.  and  it 
appears  to  have  been  taken  in  that  sense  in  1  Pet.  ii.  24.  In 
the  authorized  English  version  of  the  Old  Testament  it  is 
rendered  griefs.  Grotius  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  word 
admits  both  senses.  The  Evangelist  quotes  the  prophecy  in 
connection  with  the  miracles  of  healing  which  the  Saviour 
performed  upon  the  sick,  and  persons  possessed  with  devils, 
which  he  says  fulfilled  it.  If  we  regard  these  miracles  as 
typical  of  the  completed  regeneration  of  man  in  his  body  as  well 
as  spiritual  nature  (see  note  on  verses  2,  3,)  we  shall  have  no 
difficulty  in  reconciling  either  the  Septuagint  Avith  the  Gospel, 
or  the  Evangelist  with  the  apostle.  The  cause  or  the  origin  of 
the  infirmities,  griefs,  and  sicknesses,  of  which  the  prophet 
speaks,  is  sin.  Without  bearing  the  latter,  the  Saviour  could 
not,  consistently  with  the  Divine  plan,  bear  the  former. 
Hence  he  bore  both.  In  the  full  and  perfect  sense  he  bore 
them  on  the  cross,  as  the  apostle  Peter  expressly  alleges,  and 
by  bearing  them,  he  wrought  out  the  work  of  redemption  of 
man  from  sin  and  all  its  consequences,  moral  and  physical. 
But  these  miracles  of  healing  were  not  that  perfect  work. 
They  were  examples,  in  a  comparatively  small  way,  of  that 
perfect,  thorough  work  which  the  Lord  will  perform  upon  all 
his  redeemed  ones  when  he  Avill  come  to  receive  them  to  him- 
self, and  inaugurate  his  kingdom  on  earth.* 

*  The  remark  of  Grotius,  though  not  quite  correct,  is  worthy  of  being 
quoted :  Sicut  veterum  res  gesta;  reruni,  Christi  figuram  habuerunt,  ita  et 
ipsius  Christi  actiones  alise  aliis  denotandis  iuserviei'unt.      Nam  beuelicium 


84  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

It  is  "worthy  of  observation  tliat  St.  Matthew  makes  more 
quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  than  either  of 
the  other  Evangelists-^a  proof,  as  it  is  supposed,  that  he  wrote 
his  Gospel  especially  for  the  Jews.  The  number  of  quotations 
which  he  makes  is  thirty-five. 

Matt.  viii.  20.  "•  And  Jesus  saith  to  him,  the  foxes  have 
holes,  and  the  birds  of  the  air  nests,  [rather  shelters.  Trench, 
148,]  but  the  Son  of  Man  hath  not  where  to  lay  his  head." 

The  denomination,  or  title,  "Son  of  Man,"  which  our  Lord 
here  assumes  and  applies  to  himself,  is  taken  from  Psalm  viii.  4. 
That  this  Psalm  has  respect  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  proved 
by  Heb.  ii.  8,  9,  where  it  is  quoted,  and  so  applied.  The 
expression  occurs  very  frequently  in  the  Gospels,  and  frequently 
in  connection  with  words  which  denote  also  his  Divine  nature. 
See  Matt.  xxvi.  45  and  chap.  xxiv.  In  that  divine  sense  he 
was  understood  by  the  high  priest  when  questioned  as  to  his 
Messiahship.  Matt.  xxvi.  64,  Q^.  In  his  answer  he  had 
allusion,  it  is  probable,  to  Dan.  vii.  13,  which  may  be  regarded 
as  a  visionary  representation  of  the  future  fulfilment  of  the 
eighth  Psalm.  The  frequent  use  of  this  description  or  desig- 
nation of  our  blessed  Lord,  is  designed  to  inculcate,  among 
other  things,  the  truth  that  he  was  really  and  truly  a  man. 
This  was  essential  to  his  priestly,  as  well  as  kingly  office.  Heb. 
iv.  14,  15.  He  says  of  himself,  that  the  Father  hath  given 
him  authority  to  execute  judgment,  because  he  is  the  Son  of 
Man,  John  v.  27;  as  if  his  manhood  were  an  indispensable 
qualification  for  the  office  of  a  judge  over  men ;  and  Paul,  in 
his  address  to  the  Athenians,  Acts  xvii.  31,  refers  pointedly  to 
the  manhood  of  Christ  when  he  says,  "God  will  judge,  or 
rule,  the  world  in  righteousness  by  that  man,  (that  is,  by  the 
Adam,  ben  Adam,)  whom  he  hath  ordained."  See  1  Cor.  xv. 
45—47. 

What  our  Lord  here  says  of  himself,  shows  the  extreme 
poverty  of  his  condition  as  a  man ;  being  less  provided  for  than 
the  irrational  animals.  The  declaration  was  well  calculated 
to  discourage  the  Scribe,  if  he  cherished  hopes,  as  perhaps  he 

corporihus  redditae  sanitatis  quin  figuram  remissionis  peccatorum  et  sanatarum 
meutium  tulerit,  dubitari  non  potest.  Bis  ergo  impletum  est  vaticiuium,'-  &c. 
We  do  not  adopt  the  notion,  that  this  prophecy  was  twice  fulfilled,  as  Grotius 
here  supposes,  nor  that  the  cures  performed  on  the  diseased  bodies  of  the  sick, 
were  figurative  of  a  work  wrought,  or  to  he  wrought  ou  the  souls  of  men 
merely,  as  both  Erasmus  and  Grotius  appear  to  have  regarded  them.  The 
figure  or  the  tj'pe  has  respect  to  the  completed  work  of  man's  redemption,  viz. 
to  what  St.  Paul  calls  the  adoption,  to  wit,  the  redemption  of  the  body. 
Rom.  viii.  23;  Luke  xxi.  28.  Compare  Luke  xxi.  28  with  Rom.  viii.  19  and 
23    in    the    original:  srapaTS   Tstc    K:-j:tAac:=i:uTi»«pai^cK« ; — uTrcKurpceri;    C/u.uv^^thv 


Christ's  title,  son  of  man.  85 

did,  of  wealth  or  worldly  greatness,  from  becoming  a  follower 
of  the  Lord.  It  does  not  appear  from  the  narrative  that  he 
actually  joined  the  company  of  the  disciples. 

Matt.  viii.  23—27.    See  Mark  iv.  39;  Luke  viii.  22—25. 

The  miracle  recorded  in  these  verses  belongs  to  the  fifth 
class  mentioned  in  the  note  to  Matt.  iv.  23,  24.  It  was  not 
performed  in  the  presence  of  the  multitudes,  but  only  before 
the  disciples  who  were  then  with  him.  It  was  not  therefore 
intended  as  a  public  proof  of  his  Messiahship,  or  of  the  presence 
of  the  kingdom  which  he  preached,  but  for  some  end  or  purpose, 
in  which  at  that  time  his  disciples  only  were  concerned.  The 
same  observations  may  be  applied  to  the  miracles  recorded  in 
Luke  v.  4—9 ;  Matt.  xiv.  25—33 ;  xvii.  27 ;  Mark  vi.  47—51 ; 
John  vi.  17 — 21;  xxi.  6.  This  distinction  is  important. 
Indeed,  all  the  miracles  of  this  class  belong  to  our  Lord's 
Adamic,  rather  than  to  his  Messianic  character  and  relations. 
Notice  the  connection.  In  the  20th  verse  the  Evangelist 
records  for  the  first  time  our  Lord's  assumption  of  the  title  or 
character,  "Son  of  Man."  He  then  proceeds  almost  imme- 
diately to  the  relation  of  this  miracle,  leaving  us  to  infer  that 
it  was  performed  by  him  in  that  character.  The  title  is  taken 
from  Psalm  viii.,  and  was  assumed,  no  doubt,  with  reference 
to  the  exalted  condition  and  attributes  there  ascribed  to  him. 
This  conclusion  is  justified  by  the  application  which  Paul  makes 
of  this  Psalm  in  Heb.  ii.  5—7.  If  we  would  get  a  proper 
apprehension  of  the  majesty  of  the  character  thus  denoted,  we 
must  ponder  such  passages  as  Dan.  vii.  18 ;  Rev.  i.  13 ;  xiv. 
14;  1  Cor.  XV.  45;  Matt.  xxvi.  64;  xii.  8;  ix.  6;  John  iii.  13. 
Yet  in  assuming  the  title,  the  Lord  declared  his  extreme  des- 
titution at  that  time  of  worldly  possessions.  2  Cor.  viii.  9.  The 
miracle  removes  the  apparent  discrepancy  between  what  he 
said  of  himself  and  the  universal  absolute  dominion  over 
creatures  and  the  works  of  God,  which  the  Psalmist  ascribes 
to  him  in  that  character.  It  was  a  partial  unfolding  of  the 
profound  mystery  of  his  person;  and  the  recording  of  the 
miracle  in  this  place,  is  a  sort  of  commentary  npon  his  words, 
and  we  may  add  (digressively)  upon  what  he  afterwards  said  to 
Pilate,  John  xviii.  36,  "  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world." 
See  notes  on  John  xviii.  36. 

The  connection  thus  developed,  is  logical,  although  the  con- 
necting thought  is  latent,  and  must  be  supplied  from  the  Psalm 
from  which  the  title  itself  is  taken.  But  why,  it  may  be 
inquired,  were  only  the  disciples  permitted  to  witness  miracles 
of  this  kind,  Avhile  the  nation  at  large  had  no  knowledge  of 
them,  or  at  least  had  no  ocular  evidence  of  their  performance  ? 


86  NOTES  ON   SCRIPTURE. 

The  reader  -will  be  instructed  by  pursuing  this  inquiry  for 
himself. 

The  following  suggestions  may  aid  him  in  the  investigation, 
if  they  do  not  resolve  the  inquiry.  "  Son  of  Man,"  (Ben 
Adam)  as  a  title*  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  denotes  his  Headship  over 
the  world  of  redemption,  and  his  federal  relations  to  the  innu- 
merable hosts  of  his  redeemed  people.  As  Son  of  Man,  he  has 
a  kingdom  in  which  he  will  hereafter  come,  of  which  his 
transfiguration  was  a  type  or  figure.  Matt.  xvi.  28  to  xvii.  9 ; 
Mark  ix.  1—10;  Luke  ix.  26—36;  Matt.  xxvi.  64.  It  is  more 
comprehensive  than  his  title  of  Messiah,  which  has  respect 
especially  to  the  throne  of  David,  and  his  reign  over  the  house 
of  Jacob,  Luke  i.  32,  33.  Both  titles,  indeed,  concurred  in  his 
person,  and  the  glory  of  both  will  be  simultaneously  manifested 
in  the  same  great  consummation;  yet  this  specific  appellation, 
if  we  may  say  so,  is  different,  and  the  evidence  of  his  claim  to 
each  was  not  only  distinct  and  different,  but  exhibited  to 
different  witnesses.  The  nation  was  concerned  to  receive  him 
as  the  Messiah — the  promised  son  of  David ;  and  to  the  7iation 
he  exhibited  such  notes  or  marks  of  his  Messiahship,  as  the 
prophets  foretold  of  him  in  that  character.  See  Matt.  xi.  4 — 6. 
His  disciples,  i.  e.  his  apostles,  were  to  be  his  heralds  in  a  new 
dispensation,  the  consummation  of  which  was  to  be  the  resti- 
tution of  all  things  at  his  coming,  as  the  second  Adam,  in  his 
kingdom.  It  was  to  qualify  them  for  this  service,  which  was 
their  real  vocation,  that  they  were  taught  by  miracles,  by 
parables,  and  in  plain  language,  many  things  which  the  multi- 
tudes were  not  permitted  to  know,  see  Matt.  xiii.  11 ;  the 
meaning  of  which  was  mysterious  at  the  time,  but  afterwards 
unfolded  to  them  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Such  instruction  as  he  thus  privately  gave  them  was  emi- 
nently adapted  to  qualify  them  for  their  office,  and  inspire 
them  with  resolution  to  endure  the  sufferings  to  which  it  would 
subject  them.  Matt.  xvi.  24 — 28 ;  see  Heb.  xii.  2. 

In  our  Lord's  last  discourse  with  his  apostles  before  he 
suffered,  he  assured  them,  with  manifest  allusion  to  these 
miracles  of  his  (Adamic)  power  over  physical  nature,  as  well 
as  to  those  he  publicly  performed,  that  all  who  believed  in  him 
should  do  greater  works  than  any  he  had  done  before  them, 
John  xiv.  12.  And  why  should  he  give  them  such  a  promise, 
except  for  their  conviction  and  encouragement?  To  be  gifted 
with  such  powers  to  be  employed,  in  his  service,  is  in  itself  an 
inconceivably  great  and  glorious  reward.  See  Luke  xix.  17, 
19.  For  wonderful  as  these  miracles  may  seem  to  us,  they 
were  but  faint  and  transient  exercises  of  the  power  Avhich,  as 
Son  of  Man,  he  really  possessed;  and  although  quite  sufficient 


MYSTERIES    OF   CHRIST'S   NATURE.  87 

as  proofs  of  the  character  lie  claimed,  they  were  far  below  the 
works  which  his  redeemed  people  will  be  enabled  to  perform  in 
his  service,  through  faith  in  him,  in  the  world  of  redemption. 
In  the  plainest  language  he  declared  that  nothing  should  be 
impossible  unto  them.  Matt.  xvii.  20;  xxi.  20,  21;  Luke  xvii.  6. 
All  such  promises,  however,  had  respect  to  the  futurity  of  their 
being — to  their  glorified,  and  not  to  their  fallen  and  imperfect 
state;  for  they  enjoyed  none  of  them  during  their  earthly 
career.    1  Cor.  xiii.  2. 

These  considerations  may  suffice  to  show,  in  general,  the  use 
and  intent  of  this  miracle,  and  the  character  or  relation  in 
which  our  Lord  performed  it.  We  add  a  few  observations  on 
some  of  the  particulars. 

Matt.  viii.  23.  "  And  when  he  was  entered  into  a  ship,  his 
disciples  followed  him."  Who  these  disciples  were  we  are  not 
informed.  Probably  they  were  few  in  number,  and  those,  or 
among  those,  who  were  afterwards  commissioned  as  apostles. 

Matt.  viii.  24.  "And  behold  there  arose  a  great  tempest 
in  the  sea,  insomuch  that  the  ship  was  covered  with  the  waves." 

The  Avord  {ascanoz)  translated  tempest,  is  frequently,  if  not 
usually  employed  to  signify  an  earthquake.  Matt.  xxiv.  7,  xxvii. 
54,  xxviii.  2;  Mark  xiii.  8;  Luke  xxi.  11;  Acts  xvi.  26;  Rev. 
vi.  12,  viii.  5,  xi.  13,  19,  xvi.  18.  The  word  was  chosen,  per- 
haps, to  indicate  the  suddenness  of  the  peril.  The  sea  is  about 
eighteen  miles  in  length  and  five  or  six  in  breadth.  It  is  sub- 
ject to  whirlwinds  and  sudden  gusts  from  the  hollows  of  the 
mountains,  of  short  duration  but  great  violence.  On  this  occa- 
sion, the  gust  was  so  violent  that  the  vessel  or  boat  {xaAu-rscrdai) 
was  hidden  under  the  waves,  and,  as  we  may  infer,  would 
have  been  submerged,  had  not  Jesus  been  on  board.  See  John 
ix.  3. 

"But  he  was  asleep,"  (sleeping.) 

We  take  these  words  in  their  literal  import,  as  we  would  if 
they  had  been  said  of  one  of  his  disciples,  xxvi.  43.  In  his 
fleshly  nature,  therefore,  he  was  unconscious  of  the  tempest. 
How  could  this  be,  seeing  his  human  nature  was  united  to  the 
Divine?  We  cannot  tell.  There  was,  however,  an  impenetra- 
ble mystery  about  his  human  person,  distinct  from  the  union  of 
it  with  the  Divine  nature.  This  appears  by  what  he  said  of 
himself  to  Nicodemus,  John  iii.  13,  "No  one  hath  ascended  up 
to  heaven,  but  he  that  came  down  from  heaven,  even  the  Son 
of  Man  which  is  in  heaven;"  by  which  we  are  to  understand 
(1)  that  he  had  ascended  to  heaven,  and  (2)  that  afterwards  he 
had  locally  descended,  and  was  at  that  time  come  down  from 
heaven,  and  yet  (3)  that  he  was  at  that  moment  also  in  heaven, 
and  all  as  the  Son  of  Man.    The  distinction  of  natures  does  not 


88  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

help  US  here.  As  man,  he  ate  and  drank,  Matt.  xi.  19,  and 
slept,  as  truly  as  the  first  man  did.  Gen.  ii.  16,  21.  He  was  at 
the  same  time  on  earth  and  in  heaven,  into  which  he  had 
ascended,  see  Prov.  xxx.  4;  John  vi.  62,  and  from  which  he 
had  come  down,  and  yet  he  was  still  there.  He  was  the  man  of 
whom  Adam  in  his  unfallen  state  was  only  a  type.  Rom.  v.  14. 

Matt.  viii.  25.  "And  his  disciples  came  to  him  and  awoke 
him,  saying.  Lord  save  us:  we  perish,"  (we  are  lost.) 

They  aroused  him  (yjeipav)  out  of  sleep  to  consciousness, 
hoping  that  his  extraordinary  powers  might,  in  some  way,  avail 
to  their  deliverance,  though  their  ship  or  boat  should  be  lost. 

Matt.  viii.  26.  "And  he  saith  to  them,  Why  are  ye  fearful, 

0  ye  of  little  faith!" 

The  narrative  allows  us  to  suppose  that  the  Saviour  uttered 
these  words  while  yet  in  his  recumbent  posture,  and  while  the 
danger  appeared  as  imminent  as  ever.  "Why  fear  ye  these 
winds  and  these  waves  ?^know  ye  not,  have  I  not  told  you,  that 

1  am  the  Son  of  Man,  to  whom  the  Father  hath  given  absolute 
dominion  over  all  the  works  of  his  hands,  0  ye  of  little  faith?" 

Our  Lord  in  his  human  nature  was  susceptible  of  sorrow, 
trouble,  weariness,  and  other  sinless  human  infirmities.  Matt. 
xxvi.  37,  38,  John  iv.  6,  xi.  33,  35,  xiii.  21,  but  not  of  fear. 
Even  before  Pilate,  when  accused  by  infuriated  priests,  and 
when  bearing  his  cross  to  Calvary,  he  felt  no  fear.  As  the 
Son  of  Man,  all  creatures  and  all  the  powers  of  nature  were 
subject  to  him  as  his  servants,  while  he  was  subject  only  to  God 
the  Father,  1  Cor.  xv.  24 — 27,  with  whom,  in  his  divine  nature 
by  sonship,  he  was  one.  John  x.  30.  Sorrow,  sufiering,  pain, 
death,  he  assumed  as  inseparably  incident  to  his  redemptive 
work,  but  not  fear.  His  confidence  or  faith,  as  man.,  in  God 
was  perfect.  He  was  always  heard,  John  xi.  42;  and  his  hold 
(if  we  may  so  express  it)  upon  Omnipotence,  placed  him,  as  a 
man,  above  all  created  natures  and  powers.  See  Matt.  xxvi. 
53.  If  the  disciples  had  exercised  the  same  confidence  or  faith 
in  him,  they  would  have  shared  in  his  exemption  from  fear,  as 
well  as  all  causes  of  fear.  John  xiv.  1.  But  they  did  not,  and 
hence  the  rebuke.  We  infer  that  the  redeemed,  being  made 
perfect  by  fiiith,  will,  like  their  adorable  Head,  know  no  fear, 
Ps.  xlvi.  2,  3;  Rom.  viii.  38,  39;  and  the  only  reason  why  such 
an  exemption  is  not  attainable  in  this  life,  is  the  imperfection  of 
faith.    See  1  John  iv.  17,  18;  Heb.  ii.  15. 

"  Then  he  arose  and  rebuked  the  winds  and  the  sea,  and 
there  was  a  great  calm." 

The  power  he  put  forth  resided,  as  we  suppose,  in  his  human 
will,  though  it  was  derived  from  his  Divine  nature,  to  which  it 
was  mysteriously  united.     For  there  is  no  power  or  authority 


CHRIST'S   POWER   OVER   NATURE.  89 

but  of  God,  Rom.  xiii.  1.  So  will  it  be  with  the  elect  people  of 
Christ  in  their  glorified  state.  The  wonderful  powers  with 
which  they  will  be  invested,  will  truly  reside  in  their  wills,  so 
far  as  powers  can  be  supposed  to  belong  to  creatures;  yet  they 
Avill  be  derived  through  their  union  to  Christ  from  the  infinite 
fulness  of  God  in  Christ.  John  xvi.  23;  xiv.  12;  Matt.  xvii.  20; 
xxi.  21. 

The  words  of  rebuke  the  Saviour  addressed  to  the  winds  and 
the  sea  were  interpretative  of  the  act  he  performed,  or  intended 
merely  as  external  evidence  to  the  disciples  of  the  power  he 
exerted.  In  this  light  we  are  to  regard  his  words  to  the  leper, 
Matt.  viii.  3,  and  whatever  other  external  acts  accompanied 
any  of  his  miracles.     See  Matt.  ix.  6. 

Matt.  viir.  27.  "But  the  men  marvelled,  saying,  what  man- 
ner of  man  is  this,  that  even  the  winds  and  the  seas  obey  him!" 

This  exclamation  may  remind  the  reader  of  the  words  of 
David  in  1  Chron.  xvii.  17;  2  Sam.  vii.  19.  See  Dr.  Kennicott's 
and  Bishop  Horsley's  remarks  on  these  verses.  The  Lord 
Jesus,  in  his  human  nature,  was  a  style  of  manhood  of  which 
they  had  no  conception,  although  the  Psalmist  had  in  general 
terms  described  it.  Ps.  viii.  Adam  was  invested  with  much 
larger  powers  than  any  of  his  descendants  ever  possessed,  but 
the  world  was  not  then  what  it  became  afterwards,  when  by 
transgression  he  lost  those  powers.  It  would  be  mere  specula- 
tion to  inquire  whether  Adam  could,  in  his  state  of  innocency, 
control  at  his  will  the  physical  energies  of  material  nature;  but 
from  the  dominion  given  him  it  is  reasonable  to  infer  that  he 
had  all  the  powers  necessary  to  his  condition  as  Lord  of  the 
world.  Gen.  i.  26.  However  this  may  be,  such  powers  as  the 
disciples  had  just  witnessed,  exerted  by  a  man  at  his  will,  were 
essentially  a  new  thing,  at  which  they  might  well  marvel,  even 
if  they  had  fully  understood  the  import  of  the  title  "  Son  of 
Man." 

The  word  (u-rxxououmu)  obey,  we  need  not  say,  is  properly 
predicable  only  of  intelligent  beings,  but  in  the  sense  intended 
by  the  disciples  it  was  neither  poetical  nor  figurative.  For  the 
Lord  had  addressed  the  winds  and  the  waves  as  conscious  of  his 
presence  and  will.  The  conception  was  new  to  them,  and  this 
word  was  suited  (if  not  the  only  one  they  could  employ)  to 
express  it. 

Matt.  viii.  28 — 32.  We  regard  the  miracle  related  in  these 
verses  as  belonging  to  the  same  class  as  the  last.  It  was  per- 
formed in  the  absence  of  the  multitudes.  The  keepers  of  the 
swine,  the  Evangelist  is  careful  to  say,  were  [fiaxfjav)  a  good 
way  off,  verse  30,  and  the  demoniacs  were  so  fierce  that  no  man 
could  pass  that  way,  verse  26.  Jesus  and  his  disciples,  who  just 
12 


90  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

before  had  witnessed  the  stilling  of  the  tempest,  only  were  pre- 
sent. Yet  miracles  of  this  kind  were  often  publicly  performed 
by  our  Lord,  and  he-  imparted  to  his  disciples  afterwards  the 
power  publicly  to  perform  them.  Matt.  x.  8 ;  Mark  vi.  7 ;  Luke 
ix.  1.  Still  it  was  an  exercise  of  the  Lord's  power  as  Son  of 
Man.  The  miracles,  which  appropriately  belonged  to  his  office 
as  Messiah,  are  those  enumerated  in  his  answer  to  the  inquiry 
of  John:  "Art  thou  he  that  should  come,  or  do  we  look  for 
another?"  Matt.  xi.  3.  This  form  of  inquiry  plainly  referred 
to  the  expected  Messiah.  The  answer  virtually  referred  John 
to  what  Moses  and  the  prophets  had  written  concerning  the 
Messiah.  As  if  he  had  said :  Go  tell  John  those  things  which 
ye  do  hear  and  see.  The  blind  receive  their  sight  and  the 
lame  walk,  the  lepers  are  cleansed  and  the  deaf  hear,  the  dead 
are  raised  up,  and  the  poor  have  the  gospel  preached  to  them. 
By  these  things  he  may  know  whether  I  am  he  that  should 
come  (6  epj^op.euoi;)  or  whether  this  people  should  look  for  an- 
other. If  such  be  the  import  of  the  answer  we  may  infer 
that  the  miracles  enumerated  were  those  which  properly  be- 
longed to  the  office  of  Messiah,  as  foretold  and  described  by  the 
prophets. 

It  may  seem  to  the  reader  remarkable,  that  our  Lord  should 
answer  John  in  this  indirect  way,  and  not  by  a  simple  affirma- 
tive. But  a  careful  perusal  of  the  Gospels  will  show  that  he 
did  not  publicly  assume  the  title  of  Christ  during  his  public 
ministry,  Matt.  xvi.  20;  John  x.  24,  although  he  did  very  fre- 
quently the  title  "  Son  of  Man."*  The  reason  will  be  explained 
hereafter.  But  there  is  another  argument  or  reason  for  assign- 
ing miracles  of  this  kind  to  our  Lord's  Adamic  office  or  charac- 
ter, which  may  be  thus  stated: 

As  Son  of  Man,  he  was  the  Man  of  whom  the  first  Adam  was 
but  a  type,  Rom.  v.  14 ;  1  Cor.  xv.  45 — 47,  and  in  this  charac- 
ter or  relation  he  was  the  Lord  of  this  world.  The  conditional 
dominion  given  to  the  typical  Adam  was  made  sure  and  per- 
petual to  him,  and  in  this  sense  we  are  to  understand  the 
Psalm  (viii.)  already  so  often  referred  to.  The  power  of  Satan, 
who  is  often  called  the  god  or  the  prince  of  this  Avorld,  John 
xii.  31,  xiv.  30;  Luke  xxii.  53;  Eph.  ii.  2,  vi.  12;  see  Matt, 
xii.  29,  Luke  x.  18,  is  therefore  a  usurpation  of  his  rights  as 
Son  of  Man;  and  though  as  ancient  as  the  first  Adam,  it 
exists  only  by  his  sufferance  as  the  rightful  Lord  and  Ruler. 
Bearing  this  in  mind,  we  perceiye  that  our  Lord's  incarnation, 

*  This  title  occurs  32  times  in  Matthew,  14  times  in  Mark,  2G  times  in 
Luke,  11  times  in  John,  and  only  4  times  in  the  other  parts  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, viz.  Acts  vii.  56,  Heb.  ii.  6,  and  Rev.  i.  13,  xiv.  14.  See  Schmidt's  Gr. 
Concordance. 


Christ's  power  over  evil  spirits.  91 

and  assumption  of  this  title,  was  the  assumption  of  his  rightful 
power  as  the  Adam  of  promise  or  covenant,  over  all  the  poAver 
of  the  usurping  enemy,  Luke  x.  19,  to  be  exercised  to  a  greater 
or  less  extent  at  that  time,  according  to  the  Divine  purposes. 
John  xii.  31 — 33.  Upon  this  fundamental  idea  the  Lord  an- 
swered the  calumny  of  the  Pharisees,  when  they  ascribed  his 
power  over  devils  to  the  prince  of  the  devils.  Matt.  xii.  24 — 29 ; 
Luke  xi.  15 — 22.  By  the  strong  man  armed,  he  denoted  the 
usurping  power  of  Satan  over  this  world,  permitted  in  conse- 
quence of  the  fall  of  Adam.  By  the  stronger  man,  whose 
energies  needed  not  to  be  enforced  by  arms,  he  denoted  him- 
self as  the  rightful  Lord  and  Proprietor  of  the  world,  by  Divine 
right  in  his  character  of  Son  of  Man.  Luke  xi.  21,  22. 

This  miracle,  then,  taken  in  connection  with  the  one  last 
mentioned,  exemplifies  the  Saviour's  power  and  authority,  as 
Son  of  Man,  in  two  distinct  yet  equally  vast  departments  of  his 
government,  viz.  the  physical  or  material  world,  and  the  world 
of  spirits.  The  next  miracle  will  furnish  an  example  of  his 
governmental  power  as  Son  of  Man  over  the  human  race.  Matt, 
ix.  2 — 6,  thus  making  up  the  complement  of  evidence  of  his 
universal  and  absolute  government  over  the  world  itself.  The 
grouping  or  combining  these  miracles  in  such  order*  is  an 
admirable  illustration  of  the  method  of  the  Evangelist,  and  con- 
futes the  notion  of  some,  that  the  parts  of  this  Gospel  have  been 
disarranged. 

We  add  an  observation  on  Matt.  viii.  29  :  "  And  behold  they 
cried  out,  saying;  what  have  we  to  do  with  thee,  Jesus,  thou 
Son  of  God?  Art  thou  come  to  torment  us  before  the  time?" 
(xacr/oo,  the  appointed  time.) 

Mark  and  Luke  add  "Most  High,"  and  they  represent  the 
demons  as  adjuring  Jesus  not  to  torment  them.  It  is  evident 
they  knew  his  person  and  his  name,  and  their  absolute  subjec- 
tion to  his  poAver.  Yet  it  cannot  be  inferred  from  their  woi'ds, 
if  interpreted  according  to  the  idiom  of  the  language,  that  they 
understood  his  personality  in  the  Godhead.  Adam  was  a  son 
of  God,  and  Luke  so  calls  him,  Luke  iii.  38,  comp.  with  verse  23. 
Dominion,  glory,  and  bliss  had  been  given  him.  In  the  pos- 
session of  these  he  resembled  God,  and  in  this  sense,  as  well  as 
that  of  creation,  he  might  be  called  a  son  of  God.  From  the 
expression,  "  Art  thou  come  to  torment  us  before  the  time?" 
we  infer  that  they  took  him  to  be  that  mysterious  man,  or  seed 
promised  at  the  fall,  by  Avhose  power  they  had  understood  from 

*  It  is  important  to  notice  that  the  Evangelist  introduces  this  miracle  in  this 
place  by  anticipation — departing  from  the  onler  of  time;  and  for  no  other 
reason  that  we  can  perceive,  than  argumentative  effect,  as  above  suggested. 
But  this  was  a  sufficient  motive.     See  Mark  v.  1 — 13;  Luke  viii.  20 — ^4. 


92  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

the  beginning,  the  dominion  of  Satan,  their  leader  and  prince, 
was  at  some  time  to  be  crushed.  It  was  before  the  time  ap- 
pointed for  this  purpose,  as  the  event  has  shown  :  for  the  world 
is  still  subject,  in  some  measure  at  least,  to  Satan's  power. 
Rom.  xvi.  20 ;  1  Pet.  v.  8.  But  how  thej  knew,  or  whether 
they  knew  the  precise  time  or  season  of  the  event  they  so 
earnestly  deprecated,  is  a  question  about  which  we  need  not 
inquire.  See  Mark  xiii.  32.  They  can  no  more  penetrate  the 
secrets  of  the  Divine  mind,  than  the  most  ignorant  of  God's 
creatures.  Yet  they  may  be  permitted  to  know  what  men  may 
not,  and  cannot  know  in  this  life ;  and  God  may  withhold  from 
Satan  and  his  hosts  the  knowledge  of  things  which  he  makes 
known  to  holy  angels,  or  even  to  men.  The  word  "deep" 
{dj^ucraop,)  employed  by  Luke,  shows  what  their  fear  was.  It  is 
the  same  word  which  is  translated  ^^  bottomless  pit"  in  Rev.  xx. 
1,3;  ix.  1,2,  11;  xi.  7;  xvii.  8. 


CHAPTER    III. 

The  po-wer  of  faith. — The  call  of  Matthew. — The  harvest  field. — Powers  con- 
ferred on  the  Apostles. — Sending  forth  the  Twelve. — Necessity  of  distinguish- 
ing between  the  person,  offices,  or  authority  of  Jesus. — First  conspiracy 
against  the  life  of  Jesus. — Chief  intent  of  John's  inquiry  of  Jesus  by  his 
disciples,  "Art  thou  he  that  should  come?"  <fec. — Contrast  between  sins  against 
the  Holy  Spirit  and  sins  against  the  Son  of  Man. — A  jjrojihetic  allegory 
especially  applicable  to  the  .Jews,  shadowing  forth  their  future  character  and 
moral  condition.-^-Division  of  parables  into  public  and  private  instruction. — 
Importance  of  the  distinction  between  our  Lord's  jjublic  functions  as  a  minis- 
ter of  the  circumcision,  and  his  private  functions  as  a  teacher  of  disciples. — 
Christ's  private  instructions  to  his  disciples  contain  the  germ  of  all  the 
great  doctrines  of  the  Epistles. — An  allegorical  representation  of  the  state  of 
the  world  between  the  first  and  second  advent  of  the  Son  of  Man. — A  simili- 
tude of  the  teachers  the  Lord  designed  to  raise  up  and  instruct  in  the  myste- 
ries of  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

Matthew  ix.  2.  "And  behold  they  brought  to  him  a  man  sick 
of  the  palsy,  lying  on  a  bed ;  and  Jesus,  seeing  their  faith,  saith 
unto  the  sick  of  the  palsy,  Son,  be  of  good  cheer;  thy  sins  be 
forgiven  thee." 

AVe  have  here  another  example  of  the  power  of  faith.  The 
sins  of  the  sick  man  were  forgiven  on  account  of  the  faith  of 
the  sympathizing  friends  who  brought  him.  It  was  not  Ms 
faith,  but  theirs,  Avhich  is  alleged  as  the  ground  of  the  miracle. 
The  forgiveness  of  his  sins  involved,  as  we  may  infer,  the  cure 
of  his  infirmity.  Whether  the  cure  was  effected  simultaneously 
with  the  uttering  of  these  words,  is  not  expressly  affirmed. 
We  suppose  so:  yet  the  evidence  of  it  was  not  immediately 
apparent,  and   this  gave  occasion,  verse  3,  "  to  certain  of  the 


Christ's  power  to  forgive  sins.  93 

Scribes"  wlio  were  present  to  say  "Avitliin  themselves,  This 
man  blasphemeth."  "Who  can  forgive  sins  but  God  only?" 
Mark  ii.  7 ;  Luke  v.  21 ;  vii.  49. 

Heinous  as  the  oflfence  of  blasphemy  was,  by  the  Jewish  law, 
and  in  their  own  apprehension,  the  sublimity  of  our  Lord's 
character  and  deportment  repressed  the  audible  utterance  of 
the  accusation;  and  this  gave  occasion  for  the  exhibition  of 
another  superhuman  attribute,  which  our  Lord  always  exer- 
cised and  often  manifested  to  others.  John  ii.  24,  25 ;  vi.  64 ; 
xvi.  30;  Mark  ii.  8;  Acts  i.  24;  Rev.  ii.  23;  see  1  Sam.  xvi. 
7;  1  Chron.  xxviii.  9. 

Matt.  ix.  4.  "And  Jesus  knowing  their  thoughts  said: 
Wherefore  think  ye  evil  (of  me)  in  your  hearts?  For  is  it 
easier  to  say,  Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee,  or  to  say,  Arise  and 
walk?" 

By  this  question,  the  Saviour  assumed,  that  to  him  it  was 
indifferent  what  words  he  used,  or  whether  he  used  any.  They 
were  not  the  means  by  which  he  accomplished  his  purposes, 
but  only  the  external  evidence  of  them.  Hence,  he  added, 
verse  6:  "But,  that  ye  may  know  that  the  Son  of  man  hath 
power  [Icpuvac  iric  TfjZ  y^i^  (kiiapriai;,  Mark  ii.  10)  to  forgive 
sins  on  earth,"  I  said  these  words — that  is,  he  used  them  for 
their  sakes  merely ;  that  they  might  know  what  he  intended 
to  prove  by  the  miracle,  namely,  his  power  and  authority  as 
Son  of  Man  to  forgive  the  sins  of  men. 

The  prerogative,  which  the  Saviour  here  claims  as  the  Son 
of  Man,  rightly  considered,  involves  the  absolute  government 
of  men  in  all  their  relations.  Sins  are  offences  against  the  law 
of  God,  which  is  paramount  to  all  other  laws,  and  the  remis- 
sion of  sins  includes  the  remission  of  all  the  penalties  due  to 
them.  See  Gen.  ii.  17;  John  xi.  26;  Matt.  xi.  28.  On 
another  occasion.  Matt.  xii.  8,  he  claimed  authority  over  the 
Sabbath  day,  the  earliest  and  most  sacred  of  the  divine  ordi- 
nances. But  what  is  particularly  to  be  noticed,  he  annexes 
these  prerogatives  to  his  human,  not  to  his  Divine  nature; 
a  distinction  which,  if  observed,  is  not  sufficiently  considered. 
Li  his  Divine  nature  as  the  Eternal  Word  he  is  the  Creator 
and  Governor  of  all  worlds,  but  as  Son  of  Man  he  is  the  abso- 
lute Lord  and  proprietor  of  this  world;  and  in  this  character, 
he  claims  the  allegiance  of  the  human  race,  of  angels  good  and 
bad.  Heb.  i.  6.  The  world  to  come,  or  the  earth  in  all  its 
futurity,  physical  nature,  irrational  creatures,  in  short,  the 
world  and  all  its  apparatus  of  powers,  of  rational  and  irrational, 
animate  and  inanimate,  corporeal  and  incorporeal,  material 
and  spiritual  natures,  and  whatever  else  there  may  be  of  things 


94  NOTES   ON  SCEIPTURE. 

terrestrial — all  are  made  subject  to  him  as  the  Son  of  Man^  by 
the  Father,  with  whom,  in  his  Divine  nature,  he  is  one.  Matt, 
xi.  27;  Ps.  viii.  6. 

In  perfect  harmony  with  (or  rather,  perhaps,  we  shouhl  say, 
as  a  future  demonstration  of)  these  attributes,  he  declared,  that 
as  Son  of  Man  he  would  come  in  his  kingdom,  in  the  glory  of 
the  Father  with  his  angels,  and  sit  upon  the  throne  of  his 
glory,  and  gather  all  nations  before  him,  and  reward  every 
man  according  to  his  works.  Matt.  xiii.  41;  xvi.  27;  xix.  28. 
See  also  Matt.  xxiv.  27 ;  Mark  xiii.  26 ;  Luke  xxi.  27 ;  John 
i.  51 ;  Matt.  xvi.  27.  And,  as  if  to  remove  the  possibility  of 
mistake,  or  misapprehension,  he  declared  that  these  majestic 
powers  of  judgment  and  government  were  committed  to  him 
by  the  Father  because  he  is  the  Son  of  Man,  John  v.  27 — that 
is,  the  Adam  of  the  Covenant,  by  force  whereof  these  powers 
were  vested  in  him,  Ps.  viii.  6 — 9;  Gen.  i.  26,  from  the  be- 
ginning. 

It  is  commonly  supposed  that  this  title  or  designation  of 
our  blessed  Lord,  was  assumed  chiefly,  if  not  merely,  to  set 
forth  the  reality  of  his  human  nature  and  its  identity  with  the 
nature  of  other  men,  Heb.  ii.  14 ;  iv.  15,  and  there  can  be  no 
doubt  it  does  unequivocally  teach  us  that  truth.  Indeed,  he 
identifies  himself  with  our  manhood  in  his  reply  to  the  first 
temptation  of  the  tempter,  Matt.  iv.  4 :  "It  is  written,  man  shall 
not  live  by  bread  alone,  but  by  every  word  that  proceedeth 
out  of  the  mouth  of  God."  There  would  be  no  appositeness 
in  this  reply,  had  he  not  been  truly  a  man  made  under  the 
law.  Gal.  iv.  4.  and  bound  by  its  requirements.  But  in  assum- 
ing it,  our  Lord  had  especial  reference  (as  has  been  suggested, 
see  note  on  Matt.  viii.  23,  27,)  to  the  eighth  Psalm,  where 
"the  manner  of  the  man,"  especially  the  exalted  and  holy 
nature  of  his  humanity,  and  the  Divine  attributes  of  power 
and  government  with  which  it  is  invested,  are  briefly  portrayed. 
What  David's  conceptions  were  of  the  man  he  had  there 
described  by  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  may  be  con- 

*  But  we  must  distinguisli  between  the  power  possessed  (icTHa/v)  and  the 
full  exercise  of  it  (;^p«(7/v.)  The  power  our  Lord  possessed  as  Son  of  Man  he 
did  not  exercise,  except  occasionally  and  in  small  measures,  in  proof  or  de- 
monstration of  his  attributes,  while  in  his  state  of  humiliation;  although  he 
frequently  asserted  his  possession  of  it.  In  pursuance  of  the  Divine  plan,  he 
had  so  far  divested  himself  of  it,  in  respect  to  the  enjoyment  of  worldly  pos- 
sessions, that  he  had  not  where  to  lay  his  head.  Matt.  viii.  20.  See  John 
xix.  36.  After  his  ascension  and  glorifica'tion,  he  began  to  put  forth  his 
power,  and  he  will  continue  to  exercise  it,  until  all  things  shall  be  restored 
and  brought  into  subjection  to  him,  while  he  himself  is  subject  only  to  God. 
Heb.  ii.  8;  1  Cor.  xv.  24 — 27.  The  purchase  of  the  Holy  Spirit  by  whose 
energies  he  will  subdue  all  things  to  himself  was  made  by  the  oifering  of  his 
body,  as  Son  of  Man.  Matt.  xx.  28;  Mark  x.  45.     See  1  Tim.  ii.  6. 


CHRIST   AS   THE   SON   OF   MAN.  96 

jectured  from  his  address  to  God,  after  he  had  heard  the 
message  delivered  to  him  by  Nathan,  see  2  Sam.  vii.  18 — 29; 
1  Chron.  xvii.  16 — 27,  and  it  is  apposite  in  this  place  briefly 
to  consider  them. 

Dr.  Kennicott  remarks  of  this  address,  that  it  is  "just  such 
as  one  might  naturally  expect  from  a  person,  overwhelmed  with 
the  greatness  of  the  promised  blessing;  it  is  abrupt,  full  of 
wonder,  and  fraught  with  repetitions."  The  words  in  2  Sam. 
vii.  19,  rendered,  "And  is  this  the  manner  of  the  Man,  0  Lord 
God,"  are  not,  according  to  the  same  learned  author,  suf- 
ficiently, or  even  accurately  translated.  Their  meaning,  as  he 
expresses  it,  is :  "  And  this  is  (or  must  be)  the  law  of  the  man 
or  of  the  Adam;" — that  is,  this  promise  must  relate  to  the  law 
or  the  ordinance  made  by  God  to  Adam  concerning  the  seed  of 
the  woman — the  Man  or  the  Second  Adam,  as  the  Messiah  is 
expressly  called  by  St.  Paul  in  1  Cor.  xv.  45 — 47.  See  Rom. 
y.  14. 

Bishop  Horsley  adopts  the  leading  idea  of  Dr.  Kennicott, 
but  departs  a  little  from  his  translation.  He  renders  the 
passage  thus:    "And  this  is  the  arrangement  about  the  Man, 

0  Lord  Jehovah!"  The  words,  he  says,  are  exactly  parallel 
with  1  Chron.  xvii.  17,  Avhich  he  translates  thus:  "And  thou 
hast  regarded  me  in  the  arrangement  about  the  man  that  is  to 
be  from  above,   0  Lord  Jehovah."* — that  is,  in  forming  the 

*  Sebastian  Schmidt  translates  the  words,  1  Chronicles  xvii,  17,  i3£Tn5^^i| 
nbS'^ari  ClS^n  ^itl3  "etrespexistimejuxtarationemhominisilliuscelsisslmi," 

•which  is  defective  in  this,  that  it  does  not  give  the  full  sense  of  |-i^3>?a,i  which, 
according  to  Dr.  Kennicott,  very  remarkably  signifies  hereafter  as  to  time,  and 
from  above  as  to  place;  both  of  which  senses  are  combined  by  St.  Paul  in 

1  Cor.  XV.  47. 

Ernst  Bertheau,  Professor  at  Gottingen,  not  perceiving  the  allusion  to  the 
Second  Adam,  and  finding  a  difficulty  in  extracting  any  intelligible  meaning 
from  the  Hebrew  text  as  it  stands,  proposes  to  change  iJtTijjt^T  Kal  into 
''Dtl'^X^ni  Iliphil,  and  render  the  words  thus:  "And  thou  hast  caused  me,  as 
it  were,  to  see  the  succession  of  men  from  this  time  upwards" — in  other  words: 
"The  line  of  men  which  stretched  onward  from  David  in  an  unbroken  series 
into  the  remote  future,  appears  as  an  ascending  line  rising  upward  to  an 
immeasurable  distance."  This  author  admits,  that  if  the  present  reading  is 
retained,  "i^ji  (tor)  must  be  understood  in  the  sense  of  tmri'  (torat)  which, 
according  to  Bishop  Horsley,  may  well  be  without  rejecting  the  word  ,ib3>?3n 
as  superfluous,  altliough  Professor  Bertheau  thinks  it  must  be,  as  a  necessary 
consequence  of  such  an  interpretation.  As  to  the  expedient  of  changing  Kal 
into  Iliphil,  without  the  authority  of  a  MS.  (see  Dr.  Kennicott's  Ed.  of  the 
Hebrew  Bible)  it  is,  to  say  the  least,  a  very  bold  one  and  entirely  unnecessary; 
as  the  notes  of  Dr.  Kennicott  and  Bishop  Horsley  above  quoted,  abundantly 
prove.  S.  Cahen  admits  that  the  passage  is  difficult.  He  renders  it,  following 
De  Wette,  "Tu  m'as  regarde  d'une  mani^re  humaine,  toi  qui  es  eleve, 
Jehova  Dieu."  He  cites  Kimchi,  who  finds  in  the  words  this  meaning:  "  Thou 
hast  regarded  me,  as  if  I  were  a  man  of  elevated  rank,  whereas  I  am  a  pitiful 


96  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

scheme  of  incarnation,  regard  was  had  to  the  honour  of  David 
and  his  family  as  a  secondary  object,  by  making  it  a  part  of 
the  plan  that  the  Messiah  should  be  born  in  his  family."  See 
Barrett's  Synopsis  of  Criticisms.  Vol.  ii.  Part  ii.  pp.  545, 
646. 

If  we  carefully  consider  and  compare  this  address  of  David, 
with  the  Psalm,  which  it  is  probable  he  had  previously  com- 
posed, we  shall  perceive  that  the  purpose  of  redeeming  the 
world  and  such  a  race  as  mankind  are,  by  such  an  expedient  as 
the  incarnation,  was  a  matter  of  inexpressible  wonder  to  him  ;* 
but  his  wonder  passes  into  amazement  when  he  is  informed  that 
this  Son  of  Man,  the  Second  Adam,  the  heir  and  the  Lord  of 
the  world,  should  condescend  to  become  the  heir  of  his  throne. 

If  John  the  Baptist  had  equally  just  conceptions  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  as  the  Son  of  Man,  (and  who  can  doubt  it?  John  i.  15,) 
no  wonder  that  he  recoiled  from  the  service  of  baptizing  him 
with  water.  Matt.  iii.  14 ;  but  the  tempter  surely  had  not,  or  he 
could  not  have  thought  of  alluring  him  by  the  gift  of  what  was 

being."  The  Septuagint  and  the  Syriac  translators  followed,  as  this  author 
supposes,  a  different  reading. 

The  truth  is,  the  difficulty  lies  less  in  the  language  than  in  conceiving  the 
Divine  purpose  which  it  expresses.  It  belongs  to  the  mysteries  of  the  king- 
dom, which  mere  learning  and  sagacity,  however  acute,  can  never  discover. 
Matt.  xiii.  11.  As  to  the  signification  of  ^y^,  see  Venema  Hist.  Eccl.  vol.  i. 
p.  488.  Calasio's  Concord,  ad  voc.  ^ij-).  It  is  an  argument  in  favour  of  the 
received  text,  that  it  is  the  more  difiicult,  inasmuch  as  the  difficulty  lies 
chiefly  in  our  inability  to  grasp  the  sublime  idea  the  words  are  intended  to 
convey. 

*  Anticipating  the  restitution  of  all  things  under  the  Son  of  Man,  and  in 
prophetic  vision  seeing  it  accomplished,  the  Psalmist  exclaims  with  holy  admi- 
ration and  awe,  "0  Jehovah  (Adonenu)  our  Lord,  0  how  excellent  (great,  illus- 
trious,) is  thy  name  in  all  the  earth ! ''  Reverting  then  to  its  fallen  and  disordered 
condition,  he  summarily  sets  forth  the  redemptive  work  of  Christ  by  which 
this  great  change  was  wrought:  and  Satan  and  his  hosts,  the  mighty  enemies, 
which  had  so  long  held  it  in  subjection,  overcome  and  expelled  (stilled).  This 
wonderful  work  was  accomplished  by  strength  constructed  and  raised  up  out 
of  the  weakness  of  babes  and  sucklings.  The  next  thought  that  strikes  him,  is 
the  wonderful  condescension  of  God,  whose  power  is  so  mighty,  whose  wisdom 
so  incomprehensible,  whose  works  are  so  vast: — that  he  should  be  mindful 
and  care  for,  poor,  miserable,  mortal  man,  and  especially  that  he  should  visit 
such  creatures  in  the  way  of  an  alliance  with  them  in  their  nature,  and  for 
ever  so  little  a  time  submit  to  be  lower  (in  that  nature)  than  his  angels,  and 
not  only  to  suffer  want,  but  to  have  his  wants  supplied  by  his  own  creatures. 
Matt.  iv.  11;  Luke  xxii.  43. — The  condescension  is  so  great  that  he  has  no 
words  to  express  his  conception  of  it.  He  therefore  passes  immediately  to 
the  exaltation  of  the  (ben  Adam)  Son  of  Man,  thus  taken  into  union  with  the 
Divine  nature,  and  exultingly  adds:  "Thou  hast  crowned  him  with  glory  and 
honour  (the  honour  of  the  Father;)  Thoti  hast  invested  him  with  (absolute) 
dominion  over  these  (terrestrial)  works  of  thy  hands;  Thou  hast  put  all  things 
(pertaining  to  the  earth ;  all  its  natures,  powers,  and  creatures  in  absolute 
subjection  to  him)  under  his  feet,"  &c.  The  Psalmist  can  say  no  more;  and 
for  want  of  other  words,  ends  this  inspired  effusion  as  he  began  it:  "0 
Jehovah,  our  Lord,  how  excellent  is  thy  name  in  all  the  earth!" 


THE    CALL   OF   MATTHEW.  97 

already  his  own.  Matt.  iv.  8,  9;  Luke  iv.  5 — 7,  and  Bengel  on 
Matt,  xvi.  13. 

Matt.  ix.  9.  "And  as  Jesus  passed  forth  from  thence,  he 
saw  a  man  named  Matthew  sitting  at  the  receipt  of  custom,  and 
he  saith  unto  him :  Follow  me.  And  he  arose  and  followed 
him." 

It  is  worthy  of  heing  remarked,  that  the  call  of  the  Saviour 
■was  always  effective.  We  have  no  instance  in  which  the  least 
delay  or  hesitation  was  manifested.  Like  the  Avinds  and  the 
waves,  diseases  and  unclean  spirits,  they  yielded  instantly  to 
the  power  of  his  word,  thus  recognizing  in  the  most  impressive 
manner  his  authority  to  command  them.  Matthew,  otherwise 
called  Levi  the  son  of  Alpheus,  Mark  ii.  14 ;  Luke  v.  27,  was, 
at  the  moment  of  his  call,  actually  engaged  in  the  performance 
of  his  public  duties.  Luke  adds,  "he  left  all."  Simon  and 
Andrew,  James  and  John,  were  called  under  similar  circum- 
stances. Matt.  iv.  18,  22;  see  John  i.  35 — 51.  We  have  no 
particular  account  of  the  calling  of  Thomas,  of  James  the  son 
of  Alpheus,  of  Lebbeus,  surnamed  Thaddeus,  of  Simon  the 
Canaanite,  [;^>^-^.ft;r^C,  Luke  vi.  15;  Acts  i.  13,  the  zealous  or 
the  zealot],  nor  of  Judas  Iscariot;  yet  as  they  were  the  appointed 
instruments  of  the  Saviour's  work,  we  have  no  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  they  did  not  yield  instantly  and  implicitly  to  the 
power  of  his  word.     See  Matt.  xix.  27. 

Matthew,  it  is  probable,  was  the  only  one  of  the  twelve  apos- 
tles Avho  was  called  from  a  thriving  worldly  condition.  His 
employment  was  lucrative,  and  honourable  among  the  Romans, 
but  highly  disreputable  among  the  Jews.  Luke  v.  29,  30.  The 
account  which  he  gives  of  himself  is  characterized  by  great 
modesty  and  even  humility;  an  evidence  that  neither  his  employ- 
ment nor  worldly  wealth  had  corrupted  his  heart.  See  Luke 
xix.  1—10;  iii.  12,  13. 

Matt.  ix.  18 — 31.  The  miracles  recorded  in  these  verses, 
are  further  examples  of  the  power  of  faith;  see  note  on  Matt, 
viii.  2,  3,  and  with  that  view  of  them,  it  is  suggested,  they  were 
introduced  by  the  Evangelist  in  this  place.  The  Saviour  had 
before  this  time  restored  to  life  the  widow's  son  at  Nain,  Luke 
vii.  11 — 13;  but  that  miracle,  though  a  wonderful  proof  of  the 
Saviour's  power  and  compassion,  was  not  an  illustration  of  the 
power  of  faith.  The  Evangelists,  in  composing  their  Gospels, 
selected  from  the  abundant  materials  they  had  at  hand,  such  as 
were  best  suited  to  some  particular  point  or  purpose  they  had 
in  view.  Thus  John  records  the  miracle  of  raising  Lazarus 
from  the  dead  for  the  purpose  of  showing,  among  other  things, 
the  reason  why  the  rulers  of  the  nation  precipitated  their  mea- 
sures for  the  destruction  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  John  xi.  46 — 51. 
13 


98  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

Luke's  object  in  recording  the  raising  of  the  widow's  son  at 
Nain,  was  to  illustrate  the  great  compassion  of  our  Lord  as 
well  as  his  power;  while  Matthew,  in  the  passage  under  con- 
sideration, further  illustrates  and  enforces,  bj  various  instances, 
the  power  of  faith.     -See  Luke  viii.  50;  Mark  v.  36. 

The  miracles  mentioned  in  these  verses  suggest  many  instruc- 
tive thoughts,  and  we  may  return  to  them  hereafter.  They  have 
been  thus  briefly  alluded  to  in  this  place  for  the  purpose  of 
pointing  out  to  the  reader,  the  plan,  in  one  particular,  upon 
which  this  Gospel  was  composed,  and  vindicating  it  from  the 
suspicion  that  its  contents  have  been  disarranged. 

Matt.  ix.  35.  "And  Jesus  went  about  all  the  cities  and 
villages,  teaching  in  their  synagogues  and  preaching  the  gospel 
of  the  kingdom  and  healing  every  sickness  and  every  disease 
among  the  people." 

This  tour,  which  must  have  occupied  a  considerable  time,  in 
which  many  discourses  must  have  been  delivered,  and  a  great 
many  miracles  performed,  is  described  in  the  most  general 
terms.  A  particular  narrative  of  it,  we  may  easily  believe, 
would  have  filled  more  pages  than  the  whole  Gospel  as  we  have 
it.  The  brevity  is  characteristic,  and  proves  that  this  Gospel 
was  not  intended  as  a  biography  of  our  Lord,  or  as  a  journal 
or  connected  record  of  his  public  ministry,  but  rather  as  excerpts 
or  selections  from  large  materials.  See  note  on  John  xx.  19. 
The  Evangelist's  motive  for  alluding  to  this  tour  is  suggested 
by  the  next  verse. 

Matt.  ix.  36.  "But  when  he  saw  the  multitudes,  he  was 
moved  with  compassion  on  them,  because  they  fainted,  and 
were  scattered  abroad  as  sheep  having  no  shepherd." 

The  Lord  was  attended  on  this  tour  by  his  disciples.  It  dis- 
closed to  them  the  condition  of  the  people,  although  they  were 
not  sensible  of  their  extreme  destitution.  He  called  their 
attention  to  it,  as  a  subject  in  which  they  ought  to  feel  a  deep 
concern,  and  employ  the  means  best  suited  to  remove  it. 

Matt.  ix.  37,  38.  "  Then  saith  he  unto  his  disciples,  the 
harvest,"  as  you  see,  "truly  is  plenteous,  but  the  labourers  few: 
pray  ye  therefore  the  Lord  of  the  harvest  that  he  will  (would) 
send  labourers  into  his  harvest." 

A  congeries  of  sublime  ideas,  if  interpreted,  as  the  verse 
should  be,  according  to  the  parable  of  the  tares  of  the  field. 
Matt.  xiii.  24,  38,  39,  41.  The  harvest-field  is  the  world;  the 
harvest  the  countless  myriads  of  the  human  race ;  the  time  of 
the  harvest  is  the  end  of  the  world,  and  the  Lord  of  the  harvest 
is  the  Son  of  Man.  The  idea  contained  in  the  word  [depcaixoz) 
harvest^  includes  the  whole  work  of  preparation  for  it — all  the 
means  which  enter  into  the  Divine  plan  for  producing  the  grand 


THE    HARVEST   FIELD.  99 

result — the  sowing  of  the  seed,  the  culture  of  the  plants,  and 
finally  the  gathering  of  the  products.  The  Saviour,  on  a  later 
occa-sion,  John  xii.  24,  represented  even  his  own  body  under 
the  emblem  of  a  corn  of  wheat,  which  must  fall  into  the  ground 
and  die,  in  order  that  it  might  be  quickened  into  fructifying 
life. 

Portions  of  this  vast  field  were  to  be  occupied  in  succession 
by  successive  labourers.  The  first  portion  in  order,  was  that 
upon  which  the  Saviour  himself  had  entered.  It  was  a  little  angle 
in  the  vast  demesnes  of  the  Lord  of  the  harvest.  The  multi- 
tudes, among  whom  he  moved,  which  excited  his  compassion, 
were  comparatively  but  a  handful.  On  an  earlier  occasion,  he 
applied  a  similar  remark  to  the  Samaritans,  John  iv.  35,  show- 
ing, that  his  views  embraced  other  interests  than  those  of  Israel. 
See  John  x.  16. 

We  understand  these  words,  then,  in  the  large  sense  in  which 
the  Saviour  interpreted  the  parable  of  the  tares  of  the  field. 
Matt.  xiii.  37 — 43.  They  embrace  all  nations,  and  all  times, 
till  the  Son  of  Man,  the  Lord  of  the  harvest,  shall  come.  But 
what-  we  desire  particularly  to  notice,  is  the  majesty  of  the 
character  of  the  Lord  of  the  harvest.  He  is  the  Lord  of  the 
field,  and  the  field  is  the  world.  He  is  the  absolute  proprietor 
of  whatever  may  be  gathered  from  it.  He  calls  it  His  harvest. 
He  superintends  the  whole  work,  and  sends  forth  whom  he  will 
to  perform  it. 

The  word  [ixjSahj)  translated  send  forth,  implies  a  compelling 
force.  The  same  word  is  translated,  in  Mark  i.  12,  driveth. 
The  connection  shows  that  force  from  the  hand  of  the  Lord  of 
the  harvest  is  intended.  This  interpretation  suggests  that  the 
Saviour  had  respect  especially  to  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when 
the  apostles  entered  upon  their  labours  under  the  inspiration 
and  impulse  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  preached  the  word  as  they 
were  moved  by  him.  It  may  be  added,  that  the  word  {kpyazrj^) 
labourer,  is  used  by  the  apostle  Paul  to  denote  a  prophetic  or 
inspired  minister.  This  interpretation  agrees  with  the  fact: 
For  the  Lord  Jesus,  as  Lord  of  the  harvest,  sent  the  Holy 
Spirit  upon  the  apostles  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  thus 
qualified  them  as  labourers  for  him,  John  xvi.  7 ;  Acts  ii.  33, 
and  constrained  them  to  enter  zealously  on  their  work,  1  Cor. 
ix.  16. 

In  a  subordinate  sense,  however,  the  mission  of  the  Twelve 
apostles  to  the  cities  of  Israel,  recorded  in  the  tenth  chapter, 
and  the  mission  of  the  Seventy  disciples  soon  after,  Luke  x., 
may  be  regarded  as  the  sending  forth  of  labourers  into  the 
harvest.     It  was  a  field  of  labour,  though  not  of  success. 

Matt.  x.  1.  "And  when  he  had  called  unto  him  his  twelve 


100  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 

disciples  he  g<ave  them  power  over  unclean  spirits  to  cast  them 
out,  and  to  heal  all  manner  of  sickness  and  all  manner  of 
disease." 

Mark  hi.  13,  14,  and  Luke  vi.  12,  13,  relate  the  call  and 
ordination  of  the  twelve  apostles,  which  Matthew  omits.  These 
acts  belonged  to  the  Lord's  function  or  office  of  preacher  of 
the  kingdom;  the  design  of  them  being  to  spread  more  widely 
the  proclamation  of  the  kingdom,  which  John  the  Baptist  first 
began  to  preach.  The  conferring  of  such  powers  upon  the 
apostles,  preparatory  to  theii'  mission,  for  the  confirmation  of 
it,  was  itself  a  miracle  of  the  highest  order,  which  for  reasons 
already  suggested,  see  notes  on  Matt.  viii.  28 — 32;  ix.  2,  we 
assign  to  his  Adamic  character  or  relations.  The  power  con- 
ferred was  limited  to  two  kinds  of  miracles,  see  note  Matt.  iv. 
23,  24,  healing  diseases  and  casting  out  unclean  spirits  or 
devils;*  and  even  in  respect  to  these,  it  is  not  necessary  to  sup- 
pose he  gave  them  power  equal  to  his  own.  See  Matt.  viii.  29, 
note,  and  xvii.  16. 

The  gift  appears  to  have  been  annexed  to  their  office  as 
preachers  of  the  kingdom,  and  in  the  case  of  Judas,  if  not  of 
the  others,  to  have  been  bestowed  irrespectively  of  personal 
holiness.  They  were  not  required  to  impose  the  condition  of 
faith  upon  those  who  sought  relief  at  their  hands,  nor  are  we 
told  that  they  did  so.  Mark  vi.  13 ;  Luke  ix.  6.  How  they 
exercised  their  power  we  are  not  particularly  informed.  Mark, 
vi.  13,  says  they  cast  out  many  devils,  and  anointed  with  oil 
many  that  were  sick,  and  healed  them.  Luke  says,  ix.  6,  they 
went  through  the  towns  preaching  the  gospel  and  healing 
everywhere.  It  is  probable  they  cast  out  devils  in  the  name  of 
Jesus.  Luke  x.  17;  see  Mark  ix.  39;  Matt.  vii.  22.  This  was 
necessary  in  order  to  connect  him  with  the  kingdom  which  they 
preached ;  and  it  is  probable  our  Lord  refers  in  his  question  to 
the  Pharisees,  to  the  invocation  of  his  name  by  his  disciples 
over  the  demoniacs  they  relieved.  Matt.  xii.  27 ;  see  Acts  xix. 
13 — 15.  The  power  of  his  name  produced  these  wonderful 
effects,  while  they  were  unconscious  of  any  power  transmitted 
to,  or  proceeding  from  them. 

It  is  worthy  of  observation  that  not  a  miracle  they  performed 
during  our  Lord's  personal  ministry  is  circumstantially  recorded, 

*  By  tlie  8th  verse  it  would  seem,  power  was  also  given  them  to  raise  the 
dead.  But  these  words  (vntpov;  iytsjiiTi)  rake  the  dead  are  not  contained  in  some 
ancient  MSS.,  and  are  thought  by  some  commentators  to  be  an  addition  to  the 
genuine  text  (see  Mill  and  Beza.)  Only  three  miracles  of  restoring  the  dead 
to  life  were  wrought  by  the  Saviour  himself,  viz.  the  raising  of  the  widow's 
son,  Luke  vii.  11—16,  of  Jairus'  daughter.  Matt.  ix.  ;  Mark  v.;  Luke  viii., 
and  of  Lazarus,  John  xi. ;  at  least,  none  others  are  recorded. 


COMMISSION  OF  TEE  APOSTLES  AND  CARE  OVER  THEM.        101 

nor  a  sermon  or  an  address  which  they  made  to  the  people.  We 
are  not  told  that  they  were  followed  by  multitudes,  nor  that 
they  Avere  sought  for  by  individuals  for  healing,  except  in  one 
case  in  which  they  were  unable  to  effect  a  cure.  Matt.  xvii.  16, 
and  this  was  after  their  return  from  their  mission — an  impor- 
tant fact,  which  will  hereafter  be  particularly  noticed.  It  may 
be  added,  the  discourse  contained  in  this  chapter,  x,,  belongs 
to  the  category  of  private  instruction,  see  note  on  Matt.  iv.  17. 

Matt.  x.  5 — 7.  "  Go  not  into  the  way  of  the  Gentiles,  and 
into  a  city  of  the  Samaritans  ent'er  ye  not.  But  go  rather  to 
the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel;  and  as  ye  go  preach, 
saying.  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand." 

Such  was  their  commission.  It  was  restricted  to  the  procla- 
mation of  the  kingdom  (come  nigh)  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the 
house  of  Israel.  The  restriction  was  removed  after  our  Lord's 
resurrection.  Matt,  xxviii,  19.  Thenceforward  they  were  to 
teach  all  nations.  The  difference  is  so  remarkable  that  some 
have  regarded  the  last  as  a  new  and  distinct  commission,  but  it 
seems  proper  to  regard  it  rather  as  the  same  commission,  with 
enlarged  powers,  and  3  wider  scope. 

We  observe,  they  were  not  commissioned  to  preach  repentance^ 
as  John  the  Baptist  did.  Matt.  iii.  2.  They  were  sent  out  to 
proclaim  a  single  fact,  and  prove  the  proclamation  by  miracles. 
We  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  even  Judas,  the  traitor,  did 
not  share  equally  with  the  others  in  the  commission,  the  due 
execution  of  which  did  not  require  the  gift  of  inspiration.  Yet, 
according  to  Mark,  vi.  12,  they  did  preach  that  men  should 
repent,  which  they  would  naturally  and  might  properly  do,  in 
imitation  of  John  the  Baptist  and  the  Saviour.  The  point  of 
the  observation  is,  that  they  were  not  authorized  expounders  of 
the  law,  nor  were  they  at  that  time  capable  of  exercising  that 
function,  which  proves  their  inferiority  to  John  the  Baptist,  in 
spiritual  gifts.     See  Matt,  xxiii.  2,  3,  and  note  on  iii.  1,  2. 

Matt.  x.  9,  10,  "  Provide  neither  gold  nor  silver,  nor  brass 
in  your  purses,  nor  scrip  for  your  journey;  neither  two  coats, 
neither  shoes  nor  yet  staves." 

The  Saviour,  during  his  personal  ministry,  exercised  a  spe- 
cial care  over  the  apostles.  It  was  not  until  his  public  ministry 
was  ended,  and  he  was  about  to  surrender  himself  to  his  ene- 
mies, that  he  revoked  the  order  contained  in  these  verses. 
Luke  xxii.  35,  36.  In  this  sense,  as  well  as  in  that  of  spiritual 
guardianship,  we  understand  John  xvii.  12,  "While  I  was  with 
them  in  the  world,  I  kept  them  in  thy  name."  Even  at  the 
moment  of  their  greatest  peril,  he  exercised  his  power  signally 
for  their  protection.  "If  ye  seek  me,  let  these  go  their  way." 
These  were  words  of  power,  spoken  "that  the  saying  might  be 


102  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

fulfilled;  of  them  thou  gavest  me  have  I  lost  none."  John  xviii. 
8,  9.  We  observe,  again,  that  the  Saviour's  providence  ex- 
tended to  the  smallest  and  most  necessary  things.  This 
appears,  by  the  particulars,  enumerated  in  these  verses,  and 
yet  more  clearly  by  his  assurance,  verse  30,  "that  the  very 
hairs  of  their  heads  were  all  numbered." 

Accordingly,  the  Gospels  contain  no  account  of  any  injuries 
done  to  them.  Their  lives,  their  health  were  spared.  We  read 
of  no  sickness,  or  hurtful  accident,  or  persecution  happening  to 
any  of  them.  Peter  was  safe,  notwithstanding  his  fears  and 
want  of  faith,  when  sinking  in  the  midst  of  the  sea.  Matt.  xiv. 
24,  30.  The  power,  if  not  the  hand  of  Jesus,  the  King  of  the 
kingdom  the  apostles  were  sent  forth  to  preach,  was  ever  pre- 
sent, to  ward  off  the  most  threatening  dangers.  The  shepherd 
must  be  smitten  before  the  sheep  could  be  harmed  or  scattered. 
Matt.  xxvi.  31 ;  Mark  xiv.  27 ;  Zech.  xiii.  7. 

Matt.  x.  12,  13.  "  And  when  ye  come  into  an  house,  salute 
it,  and  if  the  house  be  worthy,  let  your  peace  come  upon  it." 
_  Some  ancient  MSS.  add  to  the  12th  verse  a  form  of  saluta- 
tion, {^.syopTS^,  ttpr^vfj  iu  tco  ocxco  toutco,)  "Saying:  Peace  be 
in  this  house."  Beza.  This  formula  accords  well  with  the 
Jewish  custom ;  but  the  emphasis  of  the  precept  lies  on  the 
word  t/our — Let  7/our  peace  come  upon  it.  The  peace  of  the 
apostles,  as  we  have  just  seen,  verses  9  and  10,  consisted  in  the 
covenanted  care  and  providence  of  the  Saviour.  It  was  an 
assured  and  special  protection  against  all  enemies,  and  all 
harm.  No  Jew  or  Jewish  household  besides  had  any  share  in 
it.  Hence,  the  Saviour  added,  "  If  it  be  not  worthy,  let  i/our 
peace  return  to  you,"  that  is,  let  that  house  be  like  others 
which  have  no  part  in  the  protection  I  have  especially  promised 
to  you,  and  to  those  who  shall  receive  yoii. 

Matt.  x.  14.  "And  whosoever  shall  not  receive  you,  nor 
hear  your  words,  when  ye  depart  out  of  that  house  or  city,  shake 
off  the  dust  of  your  feet." 

In  order  to  understand  some  of  the  directions  contained  in 
this  chapter,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  our  Lord's  ministry  to 
the  Jews  was  a  national  visitation  under  the  legal  economy, 
and  that  his  sending  of  the  twelve  apostles  to  the  cities  of 
Israel,  or  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  House  of  Israel,  verses  6,  23, 
accorded  in  its  purposes  with  his  own.  Hence  cities  were  held 
responsible  as  communities.  The  preaching  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist was  addressed  not  simply  to  individuals,  but  to  the  nation 
as  such.  The  baptism  he  administered  was  appointed  for  the 
nation,  as  the  elect  people,  see  note  on  Matt.  iii.  11,  as  well  as 
for  the  individuals  composing  it.  So  our  Lord  preached  the 
kingdom  to  the  nation;  and  John  the  Evangelist,  xii.  37 — il, 


NATIONAL  JUDGMENTS.  103 

recording  the  rejection  of  him,  quoted  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah, 
liii.  1 ;  vi.  1,  9,  10,  as  fulfilled  bj  the  national  unbelief.  There 
were  some  who  believed,  yet  for  the  national  sin  of  rejecting 
the  kingdom,  a  national  judgment  was  inflicted,  in  which  all 
were  involved,  while  those  who  did  not  consent  to  the  nation's 
sin,  received  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  John  i.  12,  and 
be  manifested  as  such,  when  the  kingdom  shall  be  brought  nigh 
again,  and  the  Son  of  Man  shall  appear  the  second  time. 

Matt.  x.  15.  "Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  it  shall  be  more 
tolerable  for  the  land  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  in  the  day  of 
judgment  than  for  that  city." 

This  verse  confirms  the  view  taken  of  the  last.  The  Lord 
pronounces  this  doom  against  the  cities  who  would  not  receive 
his  messengers,  nor  hear  their  words  as  communities ;  and  he 
likens  it  to  the  judgments  which  were  so  inflicted  upon  those 
cities  of  the  plain  of  Jordan.  They  suffered  as  social  and 
political  organizations,  and  so  did  the  Jewish  nation,  in  con- 
sequence of  their  rejection  of  Christ  and  the  kingdom  he 
preached.  Under  the  present  dispensation  the  gospel  is 
preached  to  men  as  individuals.  It  was  appointed  to  take  out 
of  all  nations,  and  the  cities  and  smaller  communities  com- 
posing them,  an  elect  people,  Acts  xv.  14;  Matt,  xxviii.  19; 
and  the  apostles,  after  the  ascension  of  Christ,  were  not 
authorized  to  enforce  their  preaching,  in  any  of  the  places  to 
which  they  were  sent,  by  the  denunciation  of  national  judg- 
ments. The  distinction  Is  important,  as  it  results  from  the 
essential  difference  between  the  economy  of  law  established 
over  Israel  an  a  nation,  and  the  economy  of  grace  which  is 
extended  to  all  nations — between  the  gospel  as  preached  to 
the  .Jews  under  the  economy  of  law,  and  the  gospel  of  grace 
preached  to  all  nations. 

Matt.  x.  18.  "And  ye  shall  be  brought  before  governors 
and  kings,  for  my  sake,  for  a  testimony  against  them  and  the 
Gentiles." 

The  apostles  received  only  one  commission  from  the  Saviour, 
but  under  it  they  received  two  missions.  See  note  on  verses 
5 — 7.  The  first  was  restricted  to  the  cities  of  Israel,  and  it 
fell  within  the  period  of  our  Lord's  personal  ministry,  verse  6. 
The  second  was  to  all  nations.  Matt,  xxviii.  19 ;  to  the  utter- 
most part  of  the  earth,  Acts  i.  8 ;  to  every  creature,  Mark  xvi. 
15.  At  the  time  of  their  first  mission,  they  had  no  idea  of  a 
second,  so  different  in  point  of  extent  from  the  first.  They 
had  no  conception  of  the  new  dispensation  about  to  be  estab- 
lished, nor  of  the  events  which  were  to  precede  and  introduce 
it.  Nor  was  it  our  Lord's  purpose  to  instruct  them  at  that 
time,  on  these  subjects.     Previously  to  this  time,  he  liad  not 


104  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

even  spoken  of  his  rejection  by  the  nation,  nor  of  his  death 
and  resurrection.  Had  any  of  these  particulars  been  mentioned, 
or  plainly  alluded  to,  they  would  not  have  understood  what  he 
intended,  Luke  xix.  31—34;  Matt.  xvi.  21,  23;  xvii.  9.  But 
as  the  whole  of  the  approaching  dispensation  was  vividly  present 
to  his  mind,  as  well  as  the  events  which  were  to  introduce  it, 
our  Lord  expressed  himself  in  general  terms,  some  of  which 
were  exclusively  applicable  to  their  firsts  others  to  their  second 
mission,  and  some  to  both,  which  they  would  afterwards  be 
taught  to  apply,  according  to  his  meaning,  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
The  passage  under  consideration  seems  to  have  respect  prima- 
rily, if  not  exclusively,  to  their  second  mission.  The  Gentiles 
and  their  governors  and  kings  are  expressly  mentioned,  among 
whom  the  apostles  at  first  were  forbidden  to  go.  In  the  pre- 
ceding verse,  17th,  councils  and  synagogues  are  mentioned,  and 
that  verse  forewarns  them  of  the  treatment  they  should  receive 
from  the  Jewish  people.  Yet  it  does  not  appear  that  even  that 
prediction  was  fulfilled  during  our  Lord's  personal  ministry, 
although  it  was,  in  the  case  of  some  of  them,  soon  after  his 
resurrection.  Acts  iv.  3 — 7.  And  when  he  commands  them 
not  to  meditate  how  or  what  they  shall  speak,  verses  19,  20, 
assuring  them,  at  the  same  time,  that  it  shall  be  given  them 
what  they  shall  speak ;  so  that  it  shall  not  be  they  who  speak, 
but  the  Spirit  of  the  Father,  he  plainly  refers  to  the  inspiration 
they  should  receive  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  consequently 
to  the  time  of  their  second  mission.  The  apostles,  however, 
would  very  naturally  apply  all  that  he  then  said,  to  the  service 
upon  which  they  were  about  to  enter,  as  they  were  ignorant  of 
the  extent  to  which  their  service  would  ultimately  be  required. 
But  the  instruction  was  sufficient  for  both,  and  the  events  which 
the  Saviour  foresaw  would  attend  their  service,  would,  under 
the  teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  show  them  its  application. 

It  is  worthy  of  being  noticed  that  our  Lord,  on  this  occasion, 
first  promised  the  apostles  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
guide  and  instruct  them,  though  it  was  only  by  implication, 
verse  20.  Afterwards,  when  about  Xo  leave  them,  he  repeated 
the  promise  in  the  most  explicit  terms.  John  xvi.  7,  13,  14 ; 
XV.  26;  xiv.  16,  26;  Luke  xxiv.  49. 

Matt.  x.  23:  "But  when  they  persecute  you  in  this  city,  flee 
ye  to  another;  for  verily  I  say  unto  you,  ye  shall  not  have  gone 
over  the  cities  of  Israel  till  the  Son  of  Man  be  come." 

This  precept  is  very  plain,  but  the  reason  by  which  it  is 
enforced,  has  been  the  subject  of  much  discussion.  We  may 
paraphrase  the  verse  thus :  "  When  you  are  persecuted,  (as  you 
will  be)  in  one  city,  (stay  not  to  endure  it,  but)  flee  from  it  to 
another^  and  if  persecuted  there  also,  flee  to  a  third,  and  so  onj 


COMING    OF   THE    SON    OP   MAN.  105 

for  proceeding  thus  from  city  to  city,  you  will  not  have  gone 
over  all  the  cities  of  Israel  until  the  Son  of  Man  (i/^>j)  may 
come  and  supersede  your  service."     The  difficulty  is  to  deter- 
mine what  w'e  are  to  understand  by  the  coming  of  the  Son  of 
Man,  (Iwc  0.V  iXdr^  6  ulo^  too  d.vdpco7ioij.)     If  we  understand 
these  words  of  his  coming  to  put  an  end  to  the  dispensation  for 
which  he  had  commissioned  them,  and  to  establish  his  kingdom 
in  outward  glory  over  the  whole  earth;  the  meaning  is  that  the 
apostles  might  never  fully  accomplish  the  service  for  which  he 
had  commissioned  them,  even  if  they  should  live  to  the  end  of 
time.     Lightfoot  understands  the  expression  to  mean  "till  the 
Son  of  Man  rise   from    the   dead."      To  this  interpretation 
Whitby  objects,  for  several  reasons,  but  chiefly  because  in  their 
first  mission  (from  wdiich  they  presently  returned,)  they  met 
with  no  persecution,  and  because  the  phrase  "  the  coming  of 
the  Son   of  Man,"  never  signifies  our   Lord's  coming  at  his 
resurrection,  but  only  his  coming  to  destroy  the  Jewish  nation, 
or  to  the  final  judgment.     Hence  he  adds  that  "seeing  the 
apostles  were  none  of  them  to  live  till  the  day  of  judgment,  it 
seems  necessary  to  understand  this  of  his  coming  to  avenge  his 
quarrel   on  the  Jewish  nation."     Dr.  Whitby's  objections  to 
Lightfoot's  interpretation  seem  to  be  unanswerable.     The  ob- 
jections to  Dr.  Whitby's  interpretation  are,  that  the  sense  he 
puts  upon  these  words  is  not  supported  by  the  texts  which  he 
cites,  viz.  Matt.  xxiv.  27,  30,  37,  44;  xxv.  13;  Mark  xiii.  26; 
Luke  xviii.  8 ;  xxi.  27 ;  all  of  which  refer  to  our  Lord's  coming 
to  the  final  judgment.     His  interpretation  is  equivalent  to  the 
sense  just  before  expressed,  that  the  apostles  might  never  be 
able  to  accomplish  fully,  even  in  the  method  which  he  pre- 
scribed, the  service  on  which  he  sent  them,  because  the  cities  of 
Israel  would  be  destroyed  and  their  population  be  dispersed  by 
the  Romans,  before  they  could  go  over  them.     Our  Lord  ap- 
pears to  have  referred  in  this  expression,  "till  the  Son  of  Man 
be  come,"  to  the  time  of  the  death  of  John  the  Baptist,  when 
his  mission  to  that  people  as  the  Messiah  was  ended,  and  he 
was  about  to  go  forth  to  them  in  the  character  of  Son  of  Man  and 
Saviour  of  all  who  would  come  to  him,  whether  the  nation  and 
the  communities  composing  it  would  receive  him  as  the  Christ 
or  not.     According  to  the  distinction  stated  by  John  i.  11,  12, 
He  came  to  his  own  as  the  Christ  and  his  own  people  received 
him  not,  but  as  many  as  afterwards  received  him  as  the  Son  of 
Man  and  Saviour  of  the  world,  to  them  gave  he  power  to  be- 
come the  sons  of  God,  &c.    See  the  original  Greek.     This  will 
be  more  fully  explained  hereafter. 

Matt.  xi.  1.     "Audit  came  to  pass  that  when  Jesus  had 
made  an  end  of  commanding  his  twelve  disciples,  (and  had  sent 
14 


106  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

them  forth  by  two  and  two,  Mark  vi.  7,)  he  (also)  departed 
thence  to  teach  and  to  preach  in  their  cities." 

Until  this  time,  the  apostles  had  followed  the  Lord  Jesus  as 
learners,  witnessing  the  miracles  he  performed,  but  without 
possessing  any  miraculous  powers  themselves.  Now  they  were 
to  be  more  or  less  separated  from  him,  at  least  for  a  time.* 
They  were  to  preach  or  proclaim  the  presence  of  the  king- 
dom. This  was  the  great  fact — the  great  event  of  the  times — 
the  greatest  event  which  has  occurred  in  this  world  since  the 
fall  of  man.  Their  mission,  then,  was  of  the  most  important 
nature,  even  with  the  restriction  before  mentioned,  that  they 
were  not  commissioned  to  expound  the  law  or  call  the  nation  to 
repentance,  as  John  the  Baptist  did.  Luke  iii.  7 — 14.  The 
powers  they  were  invested  with,  and  which  they  exercised  in 
the  name  of  Jesus,  sufficiently  authenticated  their  proclama- 
tion. 

Matt.  xi.  2 — 15.  "But  John  (the  Baptist)  having  heard  in 
prison  of  the  (miraculous)  works  of  Christ,  sending  two  of  his 
disciples,  said  to  him,  Art  thou  he  that  should  come  (6  ep^ofxe- 
voc)  or  should  we  look  for  another,"  &c.t 

John  had  been  in  prison,  according  to  Dr.  Lightfoot,  about 
seven  or  eight  months,  see  note  on  Luke  iii.  20,  21,  when 
he  sent  this  question  to  Jesus,  and  various  are  the  motives 
which  commentators  have  ascribed  to  him  in  sending  it.  See 
Whitby's  note,  for  some  of  them ;  also  Scott  and  Henry  on  this 
verse.  With  Dr.  Whitby,  we  cannot  believe  that  the  Baptist 
could  make  this  inquiry  on  his  own  behalf,  or  doubt  whether 
Jesus  were  the  Messiah  or  not ;  for  he  was  sent  to  bear  witness 
of  him,  and  received  from  heaven  a  sign  by  which  he  should 
certainly  know  him.  John  i.  6 — 8,  33;  iii.  28 — 30.  Nor  can 
we  believe  that  John  sent  his  disciples  for  their  own  satisfac- 
tion in  the  matter,  but  as  suggested  in  the  note  just  referred 
to,  was  moved  to  do  so  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  for  a  most 
important  end.  If  we  consider  what  transpired  at  our  Lord's 
baptism.  Matt.  iii.  14;  John  i.  33,  34,  the  question  seems 
a  very  remarkable  one  for  John  to  put.  It  was  sent  publicly, 
and  put  to  Jesus  when  he  was  surrounded  by  multitudes. 
The  people  knew  by  this  act  that  Jesus  was  that  mighty 
One  of  whom  John  had  previously  testified  in  general  terms. 

*  There  are  reasons  for  supposing  that  after  the  death  of  John  the  Baptist, 
they  did  not  separate  from  him  for  the  purpose  of  preaching  the  kingdom,  as 
will  appear  hereafter. 

f  The  first  verse  of  this  chapter  should  have  been  included  in  the  last  chap- 
ter. It  is  probable  the  true  reading  is  "when  John  heard  of  the  works  of 
Jesus,"  &c.  See  Mill.  Naebe,  Harwood.  But  as  the  word  is  used  historically, 
the  question  is  not  important  to  our  purpose. 


Christ's  testimony  to  John's  character  and  office.    107 

It  was  an  official  and  public  act,  the  last  and  most  explicit  tes- 
timony of  John  to  the  Messiahship  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  The 
chief  intention  of  the  transaction  was,  however,  as  we  appre- 
hend, that  the  Lord  might  publicly  testify  in  the  most  unquali- 
fied and  strongest  terms  to  the  character  and  office  of  John, 
and  formally  tender  him  to  the  people  for  their  acceptance,  as 
the  divinely  appointed  Elias  of  the  economy  of  law  under 
which  they  were  placed.  See  note  on  Luke  iii.  20,  21.  His 
testimony  was  not  only  of  the  strongest  kind,  but  most  explicit. 
He  declared  that  John  was  a  prophet  and  more  than  a  prophet — 
a  prophet  whose  mission  had  been  foretold ;  having  authority  to 
preach  a  new  dispensation.  Virtually  he  declared  that  neither 
Enoch,  nor  Noah,  nor  Abraham,  nor  Moses,  nor  David,  nor 
Elijah,  was  greater  than  John  the  Baptist.  See  notes  on 
Matthew  iii.  1,  2;  and  John  x.  41.  Having  thus  attested 
the  character  of  John,  he  added,  what  we  paraphrase  thus  :  "  If 
ye  will  receive"  not  it  but  him,  "  he  shall  be  to  you,"  now  under 
this  economy  of  law,  the  same  as  Elias;  that  is,  the  same  that 
Elias  shall  hereafter  be  to  you  under  the  economy  of  grace. 

This  offer  was  made  as  a  test  or  trial,  in  a  way  suited  to  the 
popular  apprehension,  in  order  to  show  by  their  neglect  or 
rejection  of  it,  the  insufficiency  of  the  highest  motives,  backed 
by  all  the  evidence  the  nation  had  of  John's  authority,  enhanced 
by  the  express  testimony  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  the  evidence 
of  his  miracles,  to  prevail  with  them  to  accept  John  in  the 
spirit  of  his  mission;  for  it  should  be  remembered  that  the 
coming  of  Elias  was  universally  and  justly  regarded  by  the 
nation  as  the  sure  harbinger  of  Israel's  greatest  national  glory 
and  happiness. 

The  Lord  knew  full  well  what  the  result  would  be,  yet  it 
seemed  to  the  Divine  wisdom  not  the  less  proper  that  the  test 
should  be  applied;  for  the  Jews  were  then  the  subjects  of  law, 
and  the  law  assumed  that  they  were  capable*  of  performing  its 
requirements.  Exodus  xix.  5,  6.  Yet,  had  they  been  really 
holy,  and,  therefore,  really  capable  of  fulfilling  the  law,  Elijah 
would  have  been  sent  to  them  at  that  time,  as  we  may  believe, 
and  not  John.  But  because  salvation  by  law  was  not  possible, 
and  because  a  dispensation  of  grace  could  not  be  introduced 
except  through  the  failure  of  the  law,  and  the  rejection  and 
death  of  Christ,  and  consequently  of  his  forerunner,  Rom. 
viii.  3;  Acts  xiii.  39;  Rom.  iii.  20;  Heb.  vii.  18,  19,  John 
was  raised  up  and  sent  tq  them  in  the  place  of  Elias,  with  the 
spirit  and  power  of  Elias,  to  perform  the  office  of  Elias  under 
the  law,  in  order  that  it  might  be  possible  for  God,  consistently 
with  his  own  holiness,  through  the  rejection  and  sufferings  of 
Christ,  to  give  them  the  grace  to  receive  the  true  Elias  when 


108  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

he  should  be  sent  to  them ;  and  so  become  prepared  to  receive 
their  Mesiah  at  his  second  coming.  In  dealing  with  Israel, 
God  regarded  them  as  the  subjects  of  law,  and  accountable  for 
every  breach  of  it.  At  the  same  time  he  regarded  them,  as 
they  truly  were,  the  subjects  of  a  hopeless  depravity,  and  as 
utterly  helpless  in  themselves.  According  to  this  double 
aspect  he  formed  the  scheme  of  redemption,  involving,  as 
necessary  expedients,  two  advents  of  Messiah,  and  two  fore- 
runners; yet  so,  that  the  purposes  and  requirements  of  his 
law  should  not  be  annulled  or  interfered  with  by  his  purposes 
of  grace.  Wonderful  scheme !  Wonderful  in  the  developments 
of  the  past !  and  in  the  yet  greater  wonders  of  the  future ! 

From  these  considerations  we  may  get  some  proper  appre- 
hension of  John's  character.  He  was  no  mediocral  person, 
liable  to  be  swayed,  or  swerved  from  the  purpose  for  which  he 
was  raised  up,  by  the  disturbing  influences  of  fleshly  or  human 
appetites  and  passions,  as  a  reed  is  shaken  by  the  wind, 
verses  7  and  8.  He  was  great  before  the  Lord.  Luke  i.  15. 
Everything  touching  him  took  hold  of  the  deep  mysteries  of 
the  kingdom,  and  for  that  reason  imparted  a  mystery  to  his 
person  and  ofl&ce,  which  none  of  his  contemporaries  could  com- 
prehend. See  notes  on  Matt.  iii.  1,  3,  6,  11,  12,  14,  17; 
Luke  i.  17;  John  i.  22,  23,  25;  x.  41;  Luke  iii.  20,  21; 
Matt.  iv.  12.  We  add  a  few  observations  upon  some  of  the 
clauses  of  this  passage. 

Matt.  xi.  3.  "Art  thou  he  that  should  come?"  {lu  ei  6 
kp^ofjizvo^.)  Dr.  Whitby  remarks,  that  these  words  were  in 
those  days  the  common  style  for  the  Messias.  He  refers  to 
Matt.  iii.  11;  John  i.  15,  27;  Matt.  xxi.  9;  xxiii.  39;  Luke 
xix.  38;  Hab.  ii.  3,  cited  Heb.  x.  37;  Dan.  vii.  13;  Matt. 
xxiv.  30;  xxvi.  64.  Yet  our  Lord  came  also  as  the  Son  of 
Man,  Matt,  xviii.  19;  Luke  xix.  10;  Matt.  xx.  28;  Mark  x. 
45;  Luke  ix.  56, -and  that  character  he  openly  and  publicly 
assumed.  In  that  character  he  repeatedly  declared  that  he 
would  yet  come  again.  Matt.  xvi.  27;  xxiv.  27,  30;  Mark 
xiii.  26;  Luke  xxi.  27;  Matt.  xxiv.  37,  39,  44;  xxv.  13,  31. 
The  words  under  consideration  in  themselves  are  applicable  to 
a  coming  in  either  character.  Yet  the  characters  are  not 
identical,  though  united  in  his  person.  We  have  seen  how 
they  came  to  be  united,  and  how  David  was  affected  by  the 
revelation  of  God's  purpose  to  blend  them  in  the  heir  of  his 
throne.  See  note  on  Matt.  ix.  2^6.  This  twofold  character 
or  relation  in  which  he  was  to  come,  may  be  one  reason  for 
the  form  of  the  question,  which  pointed,  nevertheless,  to  his 
Messiahship,  i.  e.  the  character  which  he  did  not  iniblkly 
assume  or  claim.   Matt.  xvi.   20;    xxvi.   63;  Luke  xxii.   67; 


EXPLANATION   OF  JOHN'S   QUESTION.  109 

John  X.  24.  In  this  character  only,  was  there  any  occasion 
for  the  inquiry.  Why,  then,  it  may  be  inquired,  did  not  John 
put  the  question  to  him,  phiinly  as  the  people  did,  John  x.  24, 
Art  thou  the  Christ?  The  reason  is  suggested  by  the  form 
of  the  answer  our  Lord  returned  to  John,  which  consisted  in 
an  appeal  to  his  works,  "Go  show  John  the  things  that  ye  do 
hear  and  see,"  &c. ;  that  is  to  say,  let  John  collect  from  this 
evidence,  whether  I  am  he  who  Moses  and  the  prophets  did 
say  should  come.  See  John  i.  45.  And  in  the  same  way  he 
answered  the  people,  John  x.  24,  25;  v.  36,  after  the  death 
of  John. 

And  if  we  reflect  upon  the  exalted  nature  of  the  ofiice  of 
Messiah,  we  shall  perceive  a  reason  for  the  form  of  both  the 
question  and  the  answer.  The  attributes  and  the  office  of 
Messiah  are  of  so  high  a  nature,  that  the  right  to  it  could  not 
be  established  or  proved  to  human  or  finite  judgment,  by  the 
mere  claim  or  assertion  of  man;  nor  indeed  by  any  merely 
human  or  natural  testimony  or  proof.  So  far  from  it,  the 
assertion  of  a  claim  to  it  upon  such  grounds  confutes  itself, 
and  so  in  effect  our  Lord  declared.  John  v.  43;  Matt.  xxiv.  5. 
Hence  the  Divine  wisdom  appointed  as  the  necessary  proof  of 
our  Lord's  Messiahship  a  dispensation  of  miraculous  evidence^ 
from  which  the  people  were  to  determine  whether  he  Avere  the 
Christ  or  not.  This  explains  our  Lord's  saying  to  his  disci- 
ples after  the  close  of  his  public  ministry — "If  I  had  not  done 
among  them  the  works  Avhich  none  other  man  did,  they  had  not 
had  sin,"  John  xv.  24,  and  also  his  saying  to  the  people:  "If 
I  do  not  the  works  of  my  Father,  believe  me  not,  but  if  I  do, 
though  ye  believe  not  me,  believe  the  works,"  John  x.  37,  38, 
thus  appealing,  if  we  may  so  say,  from  his  own  word  to  his 
works.  These  considerations  explain  also  the  form  of  John's 
question.  He  did  not  fall  into  the  error  of  the  Jews,  John  x. 
24,  nor  of  the  High  Priest,  Luke  xxii.  67,  who  had  no  ade- 
quate or  proper  conception  of  the  mystery  of  the  throne  of 
David,  or  of  the  Messiah,  but  being  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  moved  by  him  to  send  the  question,  he  put  it  in  the  only 
form  consistent  with  the  Divine  plan. 

Matt.  xi.  10.  "For  this  is  he  of  whom  it  is  written.  Behold 
I  send  my  messenger  before  thy  face  which  shall  prepare  the 
way  before  thee." 

This  quotation  was  made  from  Mai.  iii.  1.  If  the  prophecy 
of  the  same  prophet,  Mai.  iv.  5,  6,  concerning  Elijah,  was 
applicable  to  John  the  Baptist,  and  was  fulfilled  by  his  mission, 
we  cannot  account  for  our  Lord's  omission  to  quote  it.  His 
object  was  to  set  forth  in  the  most  impressive  manner,  the 
dignity  and  excellence  of  John's  character  and  ministry,  as 


110  NOTES   ON  SCRIPTUEE. 

is  evident  by  the  next  (the  11th)  verse.  Elijah  was  the 
prophet  whom  the  nation  expected,  as  the  forerunner  of  Mes- 
siah. Matt.  xvii.  10;  Mark  ix.  11.  It  was  the  common 
doctrine  of  the  Scribes.  Our  Lord,  however,  did  not  say, 
"For  this  is  he  of  whom  it  is  written,  Behold  I  will  send  Elijah 
the  prophet,"  &c.,  although  the  quotation  of  this  prophecy, 
falling  in  with  the  preconceived  opinion  and  expectation  of  the 
nation,  and  by  its  explicitness,  would  have  been  more  im- 
pressive, and  for  that  reason  would  have  been  quoted,  if  it  were 
applicable  to  John.  To  make  up,  however,  for  any  difference 
there  may  be  in  the  two  prophecies  in  this  respect,  our  Lord 
adds  (verse  11)  in  effect,  that  John  the  Baptist  was  equal  to 
Elijah,  and  if  any  had  been  born  of  woman  who  were  greater 
than  Elijah,  then  John  was  also  greater  than  Elijah;  thus  in 
the  most  expressive  and  unqualified  manner,  by  a  sweeping 
comparison,  declaring  that  John  was  at  least  the  equal  if  not 
the  superior  of  Elijah  the  prophet,  whom  the  nation  expected. 
The  design  of  the  Saviour  appears  to  have  been,  on  the  one 
hand,  to  avoid  affirming  that  John  was  Elijah,  or  that  the 
prophecy  concerning  Elijah  was  fufilled  in  him;  and  on  the 
other  hand,  to  affirm  that  John  was  at  least  equal  to  Elijah, 
and  that  his  ministry  among  them  should  have  the  effect  of 
Elijah's,  if  they  would  receive  him  with  their  hearts,  in  the  spirit 
of  his  mission,  verse  14.  How  this  could  be,  was  a  mystery  to 
the  nation,  which  our  Lord  intimated  by  the  words,  verse  15, 
"He  that  hath  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear." 

Matt,  xi.  12,  13.  "And  from  the  days  of  John  the  Baptist 
until  now,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  {^ca^erac)  suffereth  violence, 
and  the  violent  take  it  by  force:  For  all  the  prophets  and  the 
law  prophesied  until  John." 

This  passage  is  regarded  by  commentators  as  difficult,  and  if 
we  may  judge  by  the  variety  of  the  interpretations  put  upon  it, 
few  are  more  so.  We  take  it  in  connection  with  Luke  xvi.  16, 
■where  the  same  general  sentiment  is  expressed  somewhat 
differently.  "The  law  and  the  prophets  were  until  John. 
Since  that  time  the  kingdom  of  God  (euayyek^era:)  is  'preached, 
and  every  man  (J^ia^erac)  presseth  into  it." 

We  observe  that  instead  of  the  words  {^ca^erac)  sitffereth 
violence,  Luke  uses  the  words  {euayyeXc^^eTcu)  is  preached,  and 
instead  of  the  words  {^caazac  d.p~a^oo(Tcu  auvr^v)  the  violent 
take  it  by  force,  Luke  uses  the  words  (Tiac  ^k  ahx-qv  ^la^evac) 
every  man  presseth  into  it.  Is  it  -  allowable  to  interpret  the 
earlier  by  the  later  text — Matthew  by  Luke?  We  do  not 
know  a  safer  rule.  If  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  was  first  written, 
and  Luke  was  acquainted  with  it,  he  Avould,  in  composing  a 
Gospel  for  Gentile  churches,  interpret  into  plain  language  such 


THE    KINGDOM    OF   HEAVEN    SUFFERETH   VIOLENCE.       Ill 

idiomatic  or  figurative  expressions  and  allusions  as  would  not 
be  easily  understood  except  by  Jews.  Comp.  Luke  xxiii.  47 
with  Matt,  xxvii.  54,  and  see  notes  on  these  verses. 

But  this  rule  requires  a  modification  .of  the  translation.  The 
word  {^ca^erai,)  which  occurs  in  both  places,  is  translated  in 
Matthew,  suffereth  violence,  but  in  Luke,  presseth,  i.  e.  in  the 
former  it  is  taken  in  reality  in  the  passive  sense,  but  in  the 
latter  as  in  the  active  or  middle  voice.  But  this  is  not  neces- 
sary. On  the  contrary,  if  we  interpret  the  word  in  the  middle 
voice  in  both  places,  a  clear  and  consistent  sense  is  elicited. 
In  this  voice,  the  word  signifies,  in  this  connection,  "to  press, 
to  urge  itself  upon  or  against."*  Substituting  this  sense  for 
"suffereth  violence,"  the  verse  will  read,  "And  from  the  days 
of  John  the  Baptist  until  now,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  urgeth 
(presseth)  itself  upon"  ^.  e.  upon  this  generation,  for  their 
acceptance,  which  in  plain  language  signifies,  is  earnestly 
preached  to  them,  {^uo.yjs.XcC,eTae)  and  this  is  the  expression  of 
Luke,  which  we  may  regard  as  an  interpretation  of  the  figure. 

The  remaining  clause  or  phrase  should  be  interpreted  in  a 
sense  consistent  with  the  historical  facts ;  for  we  do  not  regard 
it  as  a  precept  or  evangelical  maxim,  as  most  commentators  do, 
but  as  a  declaration  of  the  manner  in  which  the  preaching  of 
the  kingdom  was  received  by  the  Jews  during  the  ministries  of 
John  the  Baptist  and  our  Lord.  They  did  not  press  into  the 
kingdom  with  a  holy  urgency.  On  the  contrary,  as  Luke  says, 
{jto-z  dz  aurrjv  (^ca^ezae)  every  man,  meaning  the  generality  of 
the  people,  (presseth)  pressed  himself  against  itf — resisted  it, 
(for  so  we  interpret  the  preposition  e^V)  see  Luke  xii.  10; 
Matthew  xviii.  21;  Rom.  iv.  20;  or,  in  the  more  figurative 
language  of  Matthew,  {d.[maC,oo<Jcv)  treated  it  with  ruthless 
violence.  This  interpretation  agrees  with  the  fact.  John  i.  11 ; 
xii.  37;  Rom.  xi.  8,  11,  12;  Matt,  xxiii.  13.  Adopting  this 
view,  we  interpret  the  word  {^caarac)  translated  violent,  by 
Luke's  expression,  (ttac  ^caC,eTac)X  every  one  presseth.     It  is 

*  The  word  is  used  in  this  sense  in  Exod.  xix.  24,  Septuagint,  though  it  is 
rendered  break  through.  "Let  them  not  press  (or  break  through)  to  ascend," 
&c.  See  also  Gen.  xxxiii.  11,  where  it  is  used  (sygwo-aro)  to  signify  the  urgency 
whicli  Jacob  used  with  Esau  to  accept  his  gifts.  Gen  xix.  Z,  where  it  is  said 
Lot  (K*T6/3;«a-aTo)  pressed  the  angels  greatly.  Judges  xix.  7,  And  when  the 
man  rose  up  his  father-in-law  {i^iaax'ro)  urged  him.  2  Kings  v.  16,  Naaman 
{vufi^ia.a-sLTo)  urged  Elisha  to  take  a  gift.  Exod.  xii.  33,  The  Egyptians  were 
urgent  (»*T«/3(at(ravTo)  upon  the  people  to  send  them  away  in  haste. 

•f  See  translations  of  Montanus  and  Erasmus;  also  the  Vulgate  JSt  omnis  in 
illud  vim  facit. 

X  The  verbal  adjective  [^imtoli)  employed  by  Matthew  as  a  descriptio  per- 
sonarum,  is  resolved  back  by  Luke  into  the  verb  from  which  it  is  derived,  and 
Luke's  motive  for  employing  a  more  simple  form  of  expression,  it  is  probable, 
was,  as  before  suggested,  that  he  might  be  more  easily  understood  by  Gentile 
Christians,  for  whom  chiefly  he  wrote. 


112  •    NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

descriptive  or  denominative  of  those  to  whom  the  kingdom  had 
been  preached,  or  upon  whom  the  kingdom  pressed  itself;  and 
if  taken  in  the  active  sense,  it  may  be  regarded  perhaps  as  an 
example  of  antiphrasis..  See  Exod.  xix.  24.  "  Pressors  into 
the  kingdom,"  they  thought  themselves  to  be,  and  such  they 
ought  to  have  been.  In  truth,  however,  they  were  rejecters  of 
the  kingdom,  and  violent  opposers  of  those  who  preached  it. 

The  sense  of  the  passage,  then,  according  to  the  foregoing 
exposition,  may  be  thus  expressed:  "The  law  and  the  prophets 
extended  downwards  from  Moses  to  the  time  of  John  the 
Baptist.  They  announced  the  coming  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  as  a  future  event.  But  from  the  beginning  of  the  min- 
istry of  John  the  Baptist  until  the  present  moment,  a  new 
order  of  things  has  supervened.  The  kingdom  of  heaven  has 
come  nigh  and  presseth  (urgeth)  itself  upon  this  people  for  their 
acceptance.  But  this  people,  Avho  regard  themselves  and  pro- 
fess to  be  (pressors  into)  eager  expectants  of  the  kingdom, 
(snatch  it  away.  Matt.  xiii.  19 — lock  it  up,  as  it  were,  with  a 
key.  Matt,  xxiii.  13)  not  only  resist  and  reject  it,  but  treat  it 
with  contumely  and  ruthless  violence."* 

Matt.  xi.  25 — 27.  "At  that  time  Jesus  answered  and  said, 
I  thank  thee,  0  Father,  Lord  of  Heaven  and  earth,  because 
thou  hast  hid  these  things  from  the  wise  and  prudent  and  hast 
revealed  them  unto  {yrjruoc^)  babes]:  even  so,  Father ;  for  so 
it  seemed  good  in  thy  sight.  All  things  are  delivered  unto  me 
by  the  Father ;  and  no  man  knoweth  the  Son  but  the  Father, 
neither  knoweth  any  man  the  Father  save  the  Son,  and  he  to 
whomsoever  the  Son  will  reveal  him." 

In  this  ejaculation  our  Saviour  tacitly  alluded  to  the  Divine 
constitution  of  which  David  speaks  in  the  8th  Psalm,  a  part  of 
which  he  formally  quoted  on  another  occasion.  Matt.  xxi.  16. 
See  note  on  Matt.  ix.  2,  6.  The  power,  by  which  the  enemy 
was  to  be  stilled,  the  Father  saw  fit  to  raise  and  construct  out 
of  the]  mouths  of  babes  {ex  crrojuaro^  vrjmcov)  and  the  Saviour 
rejoiced  to   see   the   beginning    of  the   glorious  work  in  the 

f  Jerome's  comment  on  this  verse  is,  "Grandis  enim  est  violentia  in  terra, 
nos  esse  generates,  et  coelornm  sedem  quaerere,  possidere  per  virtutem  quod 
non  tenuimus  per  naturam."  Beda  copies  Jerome  almost  verbatim.  For 
another  specimen  of  Patristic  commentary,  see  Clemens  Alexandrinus  tk  o 
a-at^ofAivo;.  He  says,  "  Nor  does  the  kingdom  of  God  belong  to  those  who  indulge 
in  sleep  and  sloth,  but  the  violent  take  it ;  for  this  is  the  only  good  violence, 
(ySt*  KAhn  Qiov  ^ixa-ncrBiu  Deo  vim  ferre)  to  do  violence  to  God,  and  to  snatch  life 
from  God."  See  Whitby,  Scott,  and  Cl^rk.  Generally  the  commentators 
regard  this  declaration  of  the  Saviour  as  an  evangelical  maxim  or  a  rule  of 
Christian  life,  and  not  as  the  declaration  of  a  matter  of  fact  merely,  touching 
the  reception  of  him  and  his  ministry  by  the  nation;  whereas  it  seems  as 
truly  a  mere  record  or  declaration  of  a  fact,  as  the  16th,  17th,  18th,  and  19th 
verses  are. 


DOMINION   OF   THE   SON   OF   MAN.  113 

Father's  revelation  of  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  to  the  little 
circle  of  humble  followers  around  him.  They  were  (ur^Tccoc) 
babes  in  knowledge  then,  and  simple-minded,  yet  made  ready 
by  Divine  influence  to  receive,  upon  his  assurance,  what  the 
wise  and  prudent  of  the  nation  contumeliously  rejected  as  un- 
worthy of  their  regard.  See  note  on  Matt.  xi.  12,  13.  But 
what  we  desire  particularly  to  notice  is  the  first  clause  of  the 
27th  verse.  "  All  things  are  {have  been)  delivered  unto  me  of 
my  Father"— John  xvii.  2;  xiii.  3;  1  Cor.  xv.  25—27;  that 
is,  all  things  and  all  men  had  been  delivered  unto  him  as  the 
Son  of  Man,  and  with  them  the  sole  power  and  authority  to 
reveal  the  Father  and  his  purposes  and  to  execute  his  judgments. 
John  V.  27.  This  is  what  the  Psalmist  teaches.  Ps.  viii.  7. 
As  Son  of  Man  he  Avas  constituted  the  absolute  Lord  of  this 
lower  world,  including  all  its  natures,  creatures,  powers,  ener- 
gies, and  things.  Everything  pertaining  to  it,  as  before  ob- 
served, was  put  under  his  feet,  i.  e.  made  subject  absolutely  to 
his  will  and  control.  And  more  than  this,  not  a  ray  of  know- 
ledge of  the  Father,  or  of  his  purposes,  could  beam  upon  the 
world,  except  through  him,  as  Son  of  Man. 

We  may  regard  this  passage  as  exegetical  of  the  Psalm,  or 
as  a  development  of  what  is  implied  in  the  dominion  there 
ascribed  to  him  as  Son  of  Man.  Paul  excepts  from  the  "all 
things  delivered  to  him" — nothing  whatever — nor  any  being 
but  God.  1  Cor.  xv.  27,  28.  We  find  it  diflScult  to  conceive 
that  such  dominion  can  be  vested  in,  or  be  possessed  by  him  as 
Ma7i,  but  this  is  what  Paul  expressly  teaches.  For  only  as 
man  is  he  subject  to  God,  and  as  the  man  Christ  Jesus  he  is 
the  Mediator  between  God  and  man.  1  Tim.  ii.  5.  In  his 
Divine  nature  he  is  one  with  the  Father.  Consider  then  how 
great  this  man  is  !  Hoav  rich  he  was  and  how  poor  he  became, 
Matt.  viii.  20,  that  we  through  his  poverty  might  become  rich, 
2  Cor.  viii.  9,  his  brethren,  Rom.  viii.  29,  and  sharers  in  his 
dominion  and  his  throne.  Rev.  iii.  21;  2  Tim.  ii.  12. 

Matt.  xii.  8.  "  For  the  Son  of  Man  is  Lord  of  the  Sabbath- 
day. 

Our  Lord  exculpated  his  disciples  from  the  charge  of  Sab- 
bath-breaking on  four  distinct  grounds.  (1.)  The  example  of 
David,  which  their  accusers  would  have  been  inclined  in  any 
other  case  to  respect.  (2.)  By  the  law  of  Moses,  relating  to 
the  temple  service,  which  imposed  bodily  labour  on  the  priests 
on  the  Sabbath-day.  This  was  a  higher  authority  than  the 
example  of  David.  (3.)  By  the  word  of  God  himself,  when  he 
declared  by  the  prophet  Hosea,  vi.  6 ;  see  Micah  vi.  6 — 8,  that 
he  preferred  mercy  to  sacrifice,  even  to  his  own  appointed 
sacrifices  of  the  temple.  This  argument  enhanced  upon  the 
15 


114  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

last.  Finally,  (4.)  by  liis  own  authority  as  the  Son  of  Man. 
The  disciples  were  his  servants,  and  he  was  the  Lord  of  the 
Sabbath-day.  Upon  this  last  ground,  we  add  a  few  observa- 
tions. As  Son  of  Man,  he  was  the  Lord  of  the  world  and  of  all 
earthly  institutions,  and  the  direct  object  of  all  earthly  allegi- 
ance; and  being  constituted  Mediator  by  the  union  of  the 
Divine  nature  in  the  person  of  the  Son  of  God  to  his  manhood 
as  Son  of  Man,  allegiance  could  go  no  higher ;  for  terminating 
on  him  it  terminated  on  God,  as  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead 
dwelt  in  his  manhood.  Col.  ii.  9;  i.  19.  See  John  i.  16.  As 
MAN,  too,  he  was  and  is  the  Mediator  between  God  and  man, 
1  Tim.  ii.  5,  and  the  Sabbath  and  the  temple  and  its  sacrifices 
were  mediatorial  appointments,  emanating  from  him,  and  sub- 
ject to  his  will;  to  establish,  suspend,  alter,  or  abolish,  ac- 
cording to  his  pleasure.  Nevertheless,  in  the  administration  of 
his  government  he  acts  in  all  things  according  to  the  will  of  the 
Father,  with  whom  in  his  Divine  nature  he  is  one.  John  viii. 
29—38;  V.  17,  19,  22,  27;  x.  30;  xii.  26.  Accordingly,  in 
the  passage  under  consideration,  our  Lord*  claims  absolute 
authority  over  the  Sabbath  as  the  Son  of  Man — that  is,  as  THE 
Adam  of  whom  the  Adam  of  the  garden  of  Eden  was  but  a 
figure,  a  shadow  or  type.  Hom.  v.  14;  1  Cor.  xv.  47.  It  is 
probable  that  some  readers  of  the  New  Testament  do  not  con- 
sider the  distinction  between  the  difierent  relations  our  Lord 
sustained  as  very  important  to  be  observed,  inasmuch  as  they 
were  all  mysteriously  blended  in  his  person;  and  some  perhaps 
habitually  regard  them  as  synonymous  designations  of  his  per- 
son, rather  than  as  the  appropriate  designations  of  his  different 
offices  or  relations.  None  of  the  distinctions,  however,  which 
the  Saviour  made  in  respect  to  his  person,  offices,  or  authority, 
can  be  considered  unimportant;  and  it  is  conceived  that  the 
due  observance  and  consideration  of  them  will  shed  great  light 
upon  some  parts  of  his  discourses  which  are  confessedly  diffi- 
cult to  explain.  Illustrations  of  this  remark  will  occur  as  we 
proceed. 

Matt.  xii.  9 — 13.  "And  having  departed  thence" — from 
the  temple — "  he  went  into  their  synagogue.  And  behold  a 
man  having  a  withered  hand  was  there.  And  they  asked  him, 
saying :  Is  it  lawful  to  heal  on  the  Sabbath-days  ?  that  they  might 
accuse  him.  And  he  said  unto  them.  What  man  shall  there  be 
among  you  that  shall  have  one  sheep,  and  if  it  fall  into  a  pit  on 
the  Sabbath-day,  will  he  not  lay -hold  on  it  and  lift  it  out? 
How  much  then  is  a  man  better  than  a  sheep  ?     Wherefore  it 

*  The  word  "Lord"  in  this   place   includes   the   sense  of  the  Heb.  ^ji^, 
{ownership,)  proprietas,  [property)  dominion. 


FIRST   CONSPIRACY   AGAINST   JESUS.  115 

is  lawful  to  do  well  on  the  Sabbath-days.  Then  saith  he  to  the 
man,  Stretch  forth  thine  hand.  And  he  stretched  it  forth;  and 
it  was  restored  whole,  like  as  the  other." 

Luke  assigns  this  miracle  to  another  Sabbath,  vi.  6,  and  he 
adds,  that  the  Saviour  also  taught.  Matthew  omits  both  these 
circumstances;  his  chief  object  being  to  establish,  by  the 
miracle,  the  claim  of  Jesus  to  be  the  Lord  of  the  Sabbath, 
verse  8  and  note.  Observe :  the  question  was  addressed  to  him 
as  a  religious  teacher.  He  resolved  it  in  the  affirmative,  and 
to  prove  his  authority,  in  the  character  in  which  he  claimed  it, 
to  expound  the  law  of  the  Sabbath,  he  healed  the  man  by  simply 
bidding  him  to  use  his  hand;  for  that  in  effect  was  the  meaning 
of  his  command.  The  circumstances  show  that  the  cure  was 
to  be  ascribed  exclusively  to  the  power  of  his  will  as  Son  of 
Man  and  Lord  of  the  Sabbath-day,  verse  8. 

The  argument  derived  from  the  allowed  course  of  their  own 
conduct,  verses  11  and  12,  in  showing  mercy  to  beasts,  serves 
to  connect  these  verses  with  the  quotation  in  the  7th  verse  from 
Hosea,  which  shows  the  logical  connection  of  the  passage  and 
the  Evangelist's  reason  for  disregarding  the  minor  circum- 
stances mentioned  by  Luke. 

Matt.  xii.  14.  "  Then  the  Pharisees  went  out"  [of  the  sjma- 
gogue]  "  and  held  a  council  against  him,  how  they  might  destroy 
him." 

The  question  was  insidiously  put,  though  with  outward 
respect.  The  argument  derived  from  their  own  conduct  was 
unanswerable,  and  the  proof  he  had  given  of  his  authority  of 
the  most  convincing  kind,  yet  neither  the  argument  nor  the 
proof  averted  or  softened  the  malice  of  the  Pharisees.  On  the 
contrary,  they  then  for  the  first  time  formally  conspired  against 
his  life.     See  John  xi.  47,  48. 

Matt.  xii.  15.  "But  Jesus,  knowing  it,  departed  thence, 
and  great  multitudes  followed  him  and  he  healed  them  all," 

It  may  be  inferred  from  this  verse,  that  there  were  other 
diseased  persons  in  the  synagogue  at  that  time,  who  had  come 
on  the  Sabbath-day  to  be  healed.  This  may  have  given  occa- 
sion to  the  question,  verse  10.  See  Luke  xiii.  14.  If  such 
were  the  fact,  the  Saviour  did  not  stay  for  the  purpose  of  heal- 
ing them,  owing  to  the  impending  danger.  According  to  Mark, 
iii.  7,  he  went  to  the  sea-side  beyond  the  confines  of  Judea.  It 
is  pertinent  to  remark  in  this  place  as  before,  see  Matt.  ii.  12, 
13,  that  the  Saviour  seldom  employed  miraculous  power  for  his 
personal  protection,  but  in  his  ordinary  intercourse  with  the 
people,  always  observed  the  rules  of  human  prudence  to  avoid 
impending  dangers.     See  Matt.  iv.  7. 

Again,  Ave  observe  a  characteristic  difference  between  the 


116  NOTES  ON   SCRIPTURE. 

Evangelists  Mark  and  Matthew.  Mark  enters  into  particulars. 
He  mentions  the  place  to  which  the  Saviour  retired — that  his 
disciples  went  with  him,  and  that  the  multitudes  which  followed 
in  his  train  were  partly  Galileans  and  partly  from  Judea,  Avhere 
he  then  was.  Matthew,  on  the  other  hand,  discerns  in  this 
conduct  of  the  Saviour  the  fulfilment  of  an  important  prophecy, 
and  a  prophetical  note  or  sign  of  his  character.  For  he  not 
only  retired  from  the  threatening  danger  to  a  great  distance, 
but  he  charged  the  multitudes  who  followed  him  that  they  should 
not  make  him  known,  that  it  might  be  fulfiled  which  was  spoken 
by  F^saias  the  prophet,  saying : 

Matt.  xii.  18.  "Behold  my  servant  whom  I  have  chosen, 
my  beloved  in  whom  my  soul  is  well  pleased,  I  will  put  my 
Spirit  upon  him  and  he  shall  show  judgment  to  the  Gen- 
tiles." 

This  passage  is  cited  by  the  Evangelist  from  Isaiah  xlii. 
1 — 4,  and  it  has  respect  to  our  Saviour  as  the  Son  of  Man. 
Only  in  that  character  could  he  be  called  a  servant  or  receive 
the  Divine  Spirit.  In  his  Divine  nature  he  was  equal  to  and 
one  with  the  Father.  But  as  man,  though  the  divinely 
constituted  absolute  Lord  of  the  world,  he  could  be  subject,  as 
a  servant,  to  God  the  Father.  John  xiv.  28;  1  Cor.  xv.  28. 
But  this  prophecy  had  respect  to  him  also  as  the  Messiah  of 
Israel.  This  is  evident  from  the  reference  to  the  Gentiles  in 
contradistinction  to  Israel.  We  have  seen  (note  on  Matt.  ix. 
2 — 6)  that  God's  covenant  with  David  contemplated  the  incar- 
nation of  the  second  Adam  (or  as  an  old  writer  describes  him, 
the  Glory-man,)  in  his  family,  so  that  the  heir,  that  is  Lord,  of 
the  world  should  be  the  heir  of  his  throne;  and  we  have  also 
seen  how  this  purpose  affected  him.  In  the  passage  under 
consideration  one  object  of  the  inspired  prophet  was  to  describe 
the  public  demeanour  of  this  great  being,  in  his  subject  con- 
dition and  servant-form,  as  a  note  or  mark  by  which  he  might 
be  known. 

Matt.  xii.  19.  "He  shall  not  strive  nor  cry,  neither  shall 
any  in  the  streets  hear  his  voice" — as  a  voice  of  terror,  Heb. 
xii.  19;  Exod.  xx.  19;  Deut.  v.  5 — 25,  during  his  merciful 
visitation.  And  then  again  the  gentleness  with  which  he  will 
carry  on  his  work. 

"A  bruised  reed  shall  he  not  break,  and  the  dimly  burning 
flax  shall  he  not  extinguish,"  till  the  time  for  the  consummation 
of  his  work  in  the  restitution  of  .all  things  shall  come.  See 
Isa.  xlii.  13 — 15.*      The  same  contrast  between  meekness  and 

*  The  first  eight  verses  of  the  42d  chapter  of  Isaiah  relate  to  the  first  advent 
of  Christ,  and  the  dispensation  of  grace  which  he  then  introduced.     At  the  9th 


EFFECT   OF   CHRIST'S   MIRACLES.  117 

majesty,  power  and  weakness,  is  stated  by  the  Saviour  in  the 
context  of  a  passage  already  remarked  upon.  Matt.  xi.  27 — 30. 
*'  All  things  are  delivered  unto  me  of  my  Father,  and  no  one 

knoweth  the  Son  but  the  Father." "Come  unto  me  all 

ye  that  labour,  for  I  am  meek  and  lowly  of  heart,  and  ye  shall 
find  rest." 

Matt.  xii.  20.  "Till  he  send  forth  judgment  unto  victory." 
See  "Critical  Conjectures,"  Lord's  Theological  and  Literary 
Journal,  vol.  vii.  563 — 569. 

Matt.  xii.  22 — 24.  "  Then  they  brought  to  him  (a  demoniac) 
one  possessed  with  a  devil,  blind  and  dumb,  and  he  healed  him, 
insomuch  that  the  blind  and  dumb  (man)  both  spake  and  saw. 
And  all  the  people  were  amazed  {l^cGtavro)  and  said,  Is  not 
this  the  Son  (rather,  is  this  the  Son)  of  David  (Messiah)? 
But  when  the  Pharisees  saw  it — (this  surmise  of  the  people) — 
they  said :  This  fellow  (say  man)  doth  not  cast  out  devils,  but 
by  Beelzebub,  the  prince  of  devils." 

The  preceding  verses  from  the  14th  are  digressive.  At 
these  verses  the  Evangelist  resumes  the  subject  of  our  Lord's 
miracles.  He  had  already  mentioned  several,  which  were 
performed,  as  we  have  seen,  for  particular  purposes.  His 
object  now  is,  to  show  the  effect  of  our  Lord's  miracles  upon 
those  who  witnessed  them.  Already,  chap.  ix.  32,  34,  he  had 
alluded  to  this  point,  but  now  he  returns  to  it  to  make  a  more 
full  explanation,  and  it  is  probable,  especially  with  a  view  to 
record  our  Lord's  reply  to  the  injurious  thoughts  of  the  Phari- 
sees. On  the  former  occasion,  just  referred  to,  he  says  the 
multitudes  {idau[iaaav)  marvelled,  and  confessed  that  the  like 
had  never  been  seen  in  Israel ;  while  the  Pharisees  affected  to 
believe  that  the  Lord  Jesus  was  an  underling  of  the  prince  of 
devils,  and  that  he  derived  his  wonderful  powers  from  him. 

verse  the  inspired  prophet  pauses.  He  annoiinces  that  the  predictions  relative 
to  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles  and  the  dispensation  of  grace  are  fulfilled.  He 
imagines  himself  as  standing  on  the  dividing  line  of  a  dispensation  past,  and  a 
dispensation  to  come,  and  looking  forward  into  the  new  economy,  he  proceeds 
to  describe  the  manner  in  which  it  will  be  introduced.  "The  former  pre- 
dictions; lo  !  they  are  come  to  pass" — that  is,  the  predictions  relative  to  the 
present  dispensation  of  the  gospel.  "New  events  I  now  declare  unto  you — 
before  they  spring  forth,  I  make  them  known  unto  you" — that  is,  the  events 
relating  to  the  economy  of  the  restitution  of  all  things.  Then  the  prophet  by 
a  bold  figure  calls  on  all  mariners  and  things  in  the  sea — the  distant  sea-coasts, 
the  deserts,  the  cities  and  the  villages,  &c., — in  one  word,  upon  the  world  as 
it  now  is,  to  sing  a  new  song  to  Jehovah  and  utter  his  praise  in  prospect  of  the 
events  he  is  about  to  declare.  The  pi^ophet  then  announces  the  second  advent 
of  the  Lord;  and  the  description  of  it  in  all  its  parts  is  a  sort  of  antithesis  to 
his  description  in  the  previous  verses  of  the  first  advent.  "Jehovah  shall  go 
forth  as  a  mighty  man,  (verse  13th)  like  a  mighty  warrior  shall  he  rouse  his 
vengeance.  He  shall  cry  aloud,  he  shall  shout  amain,  he  shall  exert  his 
strength  against  his  enemies,"  &c. 


118  NOTES   ON  SCRIPTURE. 

But  on  seeing  the  miracle  we  are  now  considering,  the  con- 
clusions of  the  common  people  assume  a  more  definite  form; 
they  seemed  to  regard  it  as  a  legitimate  proof  of  his  Messiah- 
ship.  The  Pharisees,  provoked  by  this  turn  of  the  popular 
mind,  and  apprehensive  of  the  final  result,  contemptuously 
ascribed  the  miracle  to  the  power  of  Beelzebub. 

It  is  important  to  observe,  that  none  doubted  the  fact  of  the 
miracle.  So  manifestly  clear  was  it,  beyond  the  possibility  of 
any  deception  or  delusion,  that  the  most  virulent  and  deter- 
mined opposers  of  the  Saviour  were  obliged  to  admit  it  as  a 
fact,  and  avoid  its  effect  by  accounting  for  it  in  a  manner  most 
injurious  to  him.  The  miracle,  therefore,  fulfilled  its  chief 
design.  See  note  on  John  x.  41.  Those  who  saw  it  were 
the  proper  judges  of  the  fact.  They  had  direct  and  the 
highest  evidence  possible  of  the  reality  and  truth  of  the  mir- 
acle, and  the  Jews  of  succeeding  generations  are  in  reason 
bound  by  their  judgment.  See  note  on  John  xx.  29.  The  only 
argument,  therefore,  which  is  fairly  open  to  the  Jews  and 
infidels  of  the  present  day  is,  whether  the  gospel  is  fabricated 
and  false,  or  a  true  record  or  history.  This  is  a  question  to 
be  resolved  by  historical  evidence,  like  all  others  of  the  same 
nature.  Admit  the  record  to  be  true,  and  the  whole  question 
is  decided;  for  those  who  were  eye-witnesses  were  more  com- 
petent judges  of  the  reality  of  the  miracle  than  any  others 
can  be. 

Matt.  xii.  25.  "But  Jesus,  knowing  their  thoughts,  said 
to  them:  Every  kingdom  divided  against  itself  is  brought  to 
desolation ;  and  every  city  or  house  divided  against  itself  shall 
not  stand." 

It  is  evident  from  this  verse,  that  the  Pharisees  did  not 
give  audible  utterance  to  their  calumny,  in  the  hearing  of 
Jesus.  As  before  remarked,  his  demeanour  imposed  upon  them, 
on  most  occasions,  a  powerful  restraint.  See  note  on  ]Matt. 
ix.  2 — 6.  It  is  not  improbable,  however,  that  they  uttered 
this  calumny  among  the  people,  when  they  supposed  they 
would  not  be  heard  by  him. 

The  Saviour's  answer  was  founded  upon  earthly  analogies, 
the  justness  and  force  of  which  were  obvious.  Assuming  that 
Satan,  the  prince  of  devils,  whom  they  called  Beelzebub,  had 
a  kingdom  in  this  world — (a  truth  which  on  other  occasions  he 
expressly  afiirmed,  John  xiv.  30;  xii.  31;  see  Matt.  xxv.  41; 
Coloss.  ii.  15:  Eph.  ii.  2) — which  he  desired  to  preserve  and 
maintain,  it  was  absurd  to  suppose  he  would  make  war  upon 
himself,  or  permit  malignant  spirits,  subject  to  him,  to  make  war 
on  each  other;  for  this  would  weaken  or  destroy  the  dominion 
he  had  acquired  in  this  world,  by  the  fall  of  man.     This  was 


CHRIST'S   REPLY   TO   THE   PHARISEES.  119 

his  first  answer,  and  it  was  a  complete  answer  to  tlie  whole 
accusation.     For, 

Matt.  xii.  26.  "If  Satan  cast  out  Satan,  he  is  divided 
against  himself.     How  then  shall  his  kingdom  stand?" 

Bengel's  remark  is,  "  Satan  or  the  devil  is  one.  I,  says 
our  Lord,  cast  out  Satan.  In  the  kingdom  of  darkness  there 
is  none  greater  than  Satan.  If  therefore  your  words  are 
true,  it  must  be  Satan  who  casts  out  Satan.  But  this  is 
clearly  absurd.  One  kingdom,  one  city,  one  house  is  not 
divided  against  itself,  neither  is  one  spirit  divided  against 
himself." 

Our  Lord's  second  answer  was  in  effect,  that  the  calumny 
though  malignant,  was  not  broad  enough  to  meet  the  whole 
case.  There  were  others  of  their  own  people  besides  himself, 
who  cast  out  devils.  They  did  not  do  this  with  their  own 
power.  Mark  ix.  38;  Luke  ix.  49;  x.  17.  These  were  public, 
notorious  facts.  How  did  they  explain  them?  Whence  did 
they  derive  such  extraordinary  power  ?  Ask  them ;  let  them 
be  judges  for  you  in  this  matter.  Such  appears  to  be  the 
import  of  the  following  verse. 

Matt.  xii.  27.  "If  I  by  Beelzebub  cast  out  devils,  by 
whom  do  your  children  cast  them  out  ?  Therefore  they  shall 
be  your  judges." 

These  persons  were  either  the  disciples  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
or  others  who  acted  in  his  name,  and  therefore  were  not  in 
league  with  Satan,  nor  consciously  acting  by  his  power.*  If 
these  persons  should  confess  that  they  acted  by  Satan's  power, 
the  confession  would  be  false,  or  it  would  prove  that  Satan 
himself  was  demented,  and  was  no  longer  acting  as  a  reason- 
able being.  If  they  confessed  they  acted  in  the  name  and  by 
the  power  of  Jesus,  they  would  be  witnesses  for  him.  Having 
shown  to  the  Pharisees  in  the  presence  of  the  people  the 
absurdity  of  ascribing  to  the  power  of  Satan  his  miracles  of 
power  over  Satan,  he  gives  the  true  explanation,  and  draws 
the  only  conclusion  which  this  miracle  warranted. 

Matt.  xii.  28.  "But  if  I,  by  the  Spirit  (by  the  finger,  Luke 

*  Some  have  supposed  that  the  Saviour  alluded  to  exorcists,  but  it  is  not 
easy  to  discover  the  reason  of  this  opinion,  or  the  applicability  of  the  passage 
thus  interpreted,  to  the  matter  in  hand,  if  such  were  the  allusion.  We  have 
no  reason  to  believe  that  any  person  during  the  personal  ministry  of  our  Lord 
cast  out  devils  in  any  other  name,  or  by  any  other  power  than  his.  Indeed 
his  power  over  evil  spirits  and  the  unvarying  rigor  with  which  he  exercised  it, 
compelling  them  to  flee  from  his  presence,  was  one  of  the  decisive  marks  of 
his  Messiahship.  Note  on  Matthew  viii.  28 — 32.  From  the  time  the  devil 
departed  from  the  Saviour  ((i;^«  Kctifou)  until  the  evening  of  the  last  supper  and 
the  giving  of  the  sop  to  Judas,  we  suppose  that  neither  Satan,  nor  any  unclean 
spirit  subject  to  him,  voluntarily  sought  the  presence  of  Jesus. 


120  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTUKE. 

xi.  20)  of  God  cast  out  devils,  then  the  kingdom  of  God  has 
come  upon*  you." 

This  conclusion  is  in  support  of  his  authority  as  a  preacher 
of  the  kingdom,  Matt.  iv.  17 ;  ix.  35,  and  maintains  that  his 
miracles  of  power  over  Satan  were  of  themselves  suflBcient 
evidence  of  the  truth  of  his  proclamation  of  it,  without  taking 
into  account  his  other  miraculous  works.  This  could  not  be,  if 
Satan  were  an  imaginary  being,  and  his  kingdom  in  this  world 
consequently  unreal.  Both  the  accusation  of  the  Pharisees 
and  the  response  of  the  Saviour  assumed  that  there  is  such  a 
being  as  Satan, — that  he  has  a  kingdom  in  this  world  which  he 
desires  and  endeavours  to  maintain  with  all  his  intelligence  and 
power;  that  he  has  evil  spirits  under  him,  to  execute  his  pur- 
poses, who  act  in  harmony  with  his  policy  and  purposes,  and 
that  he  conducts  his  government  as  an  intelligent  ruler  of  a 
kingdom  or  city  or  household  would,  so  as  to  produce  harmony 
of  action,  and  avoid  a  division  of  his  forces  and  strength,  to 
the  destruction  or  detriment  of  his  grand  design. 

Matt.  xii.  29.  "How  can  one  enter  into  the  house  of  a 
strong  man  and  spoil  (despoil  him  of)  his  goods,  unless  he  first 
bind  the  strong  man  ?  Then,  indeed,  he  will  (may)  spoil  (make 
spoil  of)  his  house." 

This  verse  contains  another  distinct  answer  to  the  Pharisees, 
founded  upon  the  effect  produced  by  the  miraculous  powers  of 
the  Saviour.  The  world  is  the  house  of  Satan.  It  is  the  seat 
of  his  dominion.  Bengel  in  loco.  He  is  never  called,  however, 
the  king  of  the  world,  says  Bengel,  because  he  is  a  usurper. 
But  he  is  called  the  prince  of  this  world,  from  the  greatness  of 
the  control  he  has  in  it,  restrained  though  it  be,  by  the  power 
and  the  providence  of  God.  Yet  by  reason  of  the  power  per^ 
mitted  to  him,  Satan  is  called  by  the  Saviour  a  strong  man,  or, 
as  Luke  xi.  21  has  it,  a  strong  man  armed.  Into  this  house  of 
Satan  he,  as  the  Son  of  Man  and  rightful  Lord  of  it,  had 
entered.  Satan  and  his  hosts  cower  before  him,  for  they  know 
him.  His  very  word  proves  his  lordship  over  the  world,  for  it 
binds  Satan,  the  usurping  prince  of  it,  and  all  his  hosts  of 
unclean  and  malignant  spirits,  and  delivers  their  captives.  Luke 
xiii.  16.  The  strength  of  the  allegory  we  cannot  realize, 
owing  to  our  inadequate  conceptions  of  the  world  of  evil  spirits, 
and  of  the  greatness  of  the  power  they  exercise.  Eph.  vi.  12 ; 
ii.  2;  1  Peter  v.  8;  Rev.  xii.  12;  Col.  ii.  15;  Matt.  xiii.  39. 

Matt.  xii.  31,  32:  "Wherefore  I  say  unto  you  all  manner 

*  'YfiboLG-iv  cc^'  v(Jia.i  not  merely  iyyim  has  drawn  nigh,  but  is  actually  come  to 
you,  and  (swoc  v/jimy  iini,  Luke  xvii.  lil)  is  actually  in  the  midst  of  you  as  a 
nation.  The  words  are  expressive  of  the  actual  (^rapcwo-w)  presence  of  the 
kingdom,  which  the  Lord's  presence  proved. 


SINS  AGAINST  THE  SON  OF  MAN  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.      121 

of  sin  and  blasphemy  shall  be  forgiven  unto  men,  but  the  blas- 
phemy against  the  Spirit ;  that  shall  not  be  forgiven  unto  men. 
And  whosoever  speaketh  a  word  against  the  Son  of  Man  it 
shall  be  forgiven  him.  But  whosoever  speaketh  against  the 
Holy  Ghost,  it  shall  not  be  forgiven  him ;  neither  in  this  world 
nor  in  the  world  to  come." 

These  verses  have  been  the  subject  of  much  discussion,  and 
of  anxious  inquiry  into  their  meaning.  Perhaps  we  do  not 
commonly  consider  them  from  the  proper  point  of  view.  The 
folloAving  suggestions  are  submitted  for  consideration.  A  con- 
trast is  stated  between  sins  against  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  sins 
against  himself  as  Son  of  Man.  As  Son  of  Man  he  came  into 
the  world  to  lay  down  his  life  as  a  ransom  for  many.  Matt.  xx. 
28 ;  Mark  x.  45 ;  Luke  ix.  56.  Hence,  although  he  was  and 
is  the  Lord  of  the  world,  and  of  all  men  as  Son  of  Man,  and 
entitled  to  their  allegiance  and  love,  the  sins  of  men  against 
him  in  that  character,  i.  e.  as  Son  of  Man,  might  be  forgiven, 
because  they  were  within  the  scope  and  purposes  of  his  advent 
at  that  time.  He  knew  from  the  beginning  that  he  would  be 
contumeliously  rejected,  and  the  sacrifice  he  was  about  to  make 
of  his  body  was  ample  to  atone  for  all  the  sins  they  could  pos- 
sibly commit  against  him  in  that  character.  Hence  he  prayed 
to  the  Father  from  his  cross  that  he  would  forgive  the  last  and 
most  atrocious  of  their  sins  against  him  as  the  Son  of  Man. 
But  the  Holy  Spirit  who  dwelt  in  him,  and  acted  through  him 
and  by  him,  came  not  for  such  a  purpose.  The  demonstrations 
of  his  presence  and  power,  through  the  Lord  Jesus,  were 
designed  to  authenticate  and  prove  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt, 
his  divine  mission  as  Son  of  ]Man.  They  challenged  obedience 
and  submission  to  him  as  God's  messenger,  and  the  hearty 
reception  and  belief  of  all  that  he  taught.  To  ascribe  these 
demonstrations  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  presence  and  power,  tliere- 
fore,  to  the  power  and  presence  of  Satan,  was  to  do  what  they 
could  to  frustrate  the  Divine  purposes,  and  prevent  for  ever  the 
world's  redemption.  It  was  in  eifect  calling  the  Holy  Spirit, 
who  dwelt  in  Jesus,  an  unclean  spirit,  Mark  iii.  30,  and  there- 
fore a  blasphemy  against  God.  It  was  taking  part  with  Satan 
in  God's  controversy  with  him ;  it  was  complicity  in  Satan's 
sin,  which,  in  its  very  nature,  is  unpardonable. 

In  this  consideration  lies  the  force  of  the  verse  preceding 
these:  " He  that  is  not  with  me" — on  my  side  in  this  contro- 
versy, "  is  against  me,  and  he  that  gathereth  not  with  me,  ecat- 
tereth  abroad"  with  Satan,  and  shall  have  part  in  his  irreversi- 
ble doom. 

Matt.  xii.  33.  "Either  make  the  tree  good,  and  his  (its) 
16 


122  NOTES   ON    SCRIPTURE. 

fruit  good;  or  else  make  the  tree  corrupt,  and  his  (its)  fruit 
corrupt;  for  the  tree  is  known  by  its  fruit." 

A  proverbial  expression.  By  the  tree  he  means  himself, 
and  by  the  fruits  of  the  tree,  his  miraculous  works;  which 
were  undeniably  good  and  beneficent  in  their  nature  and  effects. 
The  sense,  as  we  conceive,  is  expressed  in  the  following  para- 
phrase : 

Instead  of  calumniating  me  inconsistently  as  you  do,  either 
confess  that  I  am  a  good  man,  and  that  I  perform  these  mira- 
cles of  mercy  by  the  power  and  according  to  the  will  of  God, 
or  if  you  persist  in  saying  that  I  am  a  wicked  man,  and  do 
these  miracles  by  the  power  and  according  to  the  will  of  Satan, 
deny  that  the  works  I  do  are  beneficent  and  good,  and  such  as 
become  the  power  and  the  goodness  of  God  to  perform.  Nay, 
more:  to  be  consistent,  you  should  affirm  that  my  works  are 
evil,  and  such  as  it  becomes  Satan,  the  father  of  lies  and  the 
author  of  misery,  to  accomplish:  for  in  God's  kingdom  of 
nature,  the  tree  is  known,  and  infallibly  judged  of,  by  the  fruit 
it  produces. 

Matt.  xii.  38.  "  Then  certain  of  the  Scribes  and  of  the 
Pharisees  answered,  saying:  Master,  we  would  see  a  sign  from 
thee." 

A  similar  passage  occurs  in  Matt.  xvi.  1 — 4.  We  may  take 
them  together,  as  the  proper  exposition  of  both  is  the  same. 
This  question  was  put  after  our  Lord  had  publicly  performed 
many  miracles,  the  reality  of  which  could  not  be  denied.  But 
they  were  such  miracles  as  he  enumerated  in  his  answer  to  John 
the  Baptist.  Matt.  xi.  5.  He  had  restored  to  life  the  son  of 
the  widow  at  Nain,  healed  many  persons  of  their  diseases  and 
infirmities,  and  cast  out  many  devils.  These  miracles  did  not 
satisfy  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees.  They  demanded  a  miracle 
of  another  nature — a  sign  from  heaven.  Luke  xi.  16.  Erasmus 
supposed  that  there  was  an  allusion  in  this  demand  to  our 
Lord's  claim  to  a  Divine  nature,  and  the  aid  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  We  know  not  how  this  may  be,  and  it  is  not  important 
to  inquire.  Our  Lord's  answer  to  the  demand  contains  the 
instruction  which  deserves  chiefly  to  be  noticed.  It  may  be 
paraphrased  thus:  "In  the  common  affairs  of  this  life  you  are 
contented  with  probable  grounds  of  judgment.  You  judge  of 
the  approaching  weather  by  the  appearance  of  the  sky,  and 
regulate  your  conduct  in  your  most  important  worldly  concerns 
accordingly.  In  so  doing  you  act  wisely ;  for  this  is  the  kind 
of  evidence  God  in  his  providence  gives  in  such  matters.  Just 
so  in  respect  to  the  times  of  the  kingdom,  which  I  preach  unto 
you.  God  has  given  you  in  the  Scriptures  the  signs,  by  which 
you  may  judge  of  its  near  approach,  and  that,  too,  with  much 


THE   PHARISEES'    DEMAND    FOR   SIGNS.  123 

greater  certainty  than  you  can  of  tlie  events  of  his  common 
providence.  In  my  life,  my  doctrine,  and  my  daily  works,  per- 
formed in  the  presence  of  you  all,  you  have  the  divinely  ap- 
pointed signs  of  the  coming  kingdom.  Yet  not  content  with 
these,  you  demand  signs  of  another  nature,  and  such  signs  as 
the  Scriptures  do  not  authorize  you  to  expect;  which,  if  given, 
would  not  be  so  sure  grounds  of  belief  as  these  signs  which  you 
already  have.*  Therefore  God  will  not  give  you  the  signs  you 
demand,  nor  other  than  such  as  you  now  have,  except  one, 
which  will  come  too  late  to  prevent  your  guilty  rejection  of  me 
and  the  kingdom  I  preach,  namely,  the  sign  of  Jonas  the 
prophet,  whose  history  typically  sets  forth  my  burial  and  my 
resurrection." 

This  answer  proceeds  upon  the  assumption,  that  the  Jewish 
people  were  the  subjects  of  law,  and  bound  by  its  requirements 
— that  in  dealing  with  them,  God  had  given  them  sufficient  evi- 
dence of  his  will,  and  the  very  evidence  which  he  had  told  them 
■beforehand,  he  would  give  them,  and  that  he  would  hold  them 
responsible  and  guilty  if  they  rejected  it.  The  Saviour 
exhibited  to  his  disciples  in  private,  it  is  true,  evidence  of  his 
Divine  character  which  he  withheld  from  the  nation  at  large. 
See  note  on  Matt.  viii.  23 — 27.  But  this  evidence,  so  to 
speak,  was  outside  of  the  Messianic  prophecies,  and  therefore 
not  the  kind  of  evidence  upon  which  the  nation  at  large  was 
to  be  tried.  Had  he  been  transfigured  in  the  temple  before 
the  multitudes,  or  cast  himself  unharmed  from  its  pinnacle ;  or 
had  he  walked  upon  the  waters  in  a  tempest,  or  hushed  the 
whirlwinds  by  his  word  in  the  presence  of  the  Pharisees  the 
the  rulers  and  the  people,  no  doubt  the  minds  of  his  fiercest 
enemies  and  revilers  would  have  been  overpowered  and  awed 
into  submission;  but  their  hearts  would  have  remained  selfish 
and  corrupt,  and  themselves  as  unfit  subjects  of  the  kingdom 

*  A  popular  commentator  remarks,  on  Matt.  viii.  33  :  "  That  the  purpose  of 
the  Saviour's  miracles  was  to  confirm  his  Divine  mission."  Upon  this  we  have 
nothing  to  say;  but  he  goes  on  to  remaric,  "that  it  might  as  well  have  been 
done  by  splitting  roclis  or  removing  mountains,  or  causing  water  to  run  up 
steep  hills,  as  by  any  other  display  of  Divine  power."  Upon  this  remark,  we 
observe,  that  if  the  Scriptures  had  predicted  that  Messiah  should  perform  such 
works  as  these,  then  they  would  have  been  the  appropriate  marks  or  signs  of 
his  character.  But  such  manifestations  of  power  would  not  have  been  in  accord- 
ance with  the  Scriptures  as  we  have  them,  and  therefore  if  the  Saviour  had 
made  them,  they  would  not  have  proven  that  he  was  the  Messiah  whom  Moses 
and  the  prophets  did  say  should  come.  See  note  on  Matt.  xi.  3 — 4.  The  force 
of  the  evidence  which  our  Lord's  miracles  furnished  consisted  in  this,  that 
while  it  fully  and  accurately  corresponded  with  the  prophecies  of  the  Messiah, 
his  works  were  such  as  no  other  man  ever  did,  and  therefore  left  no  room  for 
a  reasonable  doubt,  that  he  was  the  Messiah  whose  mission  was  foretold.  John 
V.  39;  XV.  24, 


124  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTUKE. 

as  before.     See  notes  on  Luke  xxiii,  35;  Matt,  xxvii.  39 — 43; 
Mark  XV.  29—32. 

Matt.  xii.  43 — 45.  "'When  the  unclean  spirit  is  gone  out 
of  a  man,  he  walketh  through  dry  places  seeking  rest  and 
findeth  none.  Then  he  saith,  I  will  return  to  my  house,  "whence 
I  came  out.  And  Avhen  he  is  come  he  findeth  it  empty,  swept, 
and  garnished.  Then  he  goeth  and  taketh  with  himself  seven 
other  spirits  more  wicked  than  himself,  and  they  enter  in  and 
dwell  there,  and  the  last  state  of  that  man  is  worse  than  the 
first.     Even  so  shall  it  be  also  unto  this  zvieked generation." 

A  prophetical  allegory,  especially  applicable  to  the  Jews, 
which  shadows  forth  their  future  character  and  moral  condition, 
as  the  last  clause  shows.  During  our  Lord's  personal  ministry 
among  that  people  a  new  order  of  things  existed.  The  king- 
dom of  heaven  had  come  nigh.  The  Son  of  Man,  the  rightful 
Lord  of  the  world,  had  come  to  take  possession  of  his  own,  and 
expel  the  enemy  and  usurper,  or,  in  the  words  of  the  Psalmist, 
to  still  the  enemy  and  the  avenger.  Ps.  viii.  2.  During  that' 
period  Satan  was  disarmed.  He  had  fallen  from  the  heaven  of 
his  power.  Luke  x.  18.  His  kingdom  was  disturbed  by  adverse 
influences.  He  was  liable  to  be  banished,  with  his  hosts,  by 
the  word  of  Jesus,  the  true  Melchisedec,  to  the  abyss  of  dark- 
ness, and  would  have  been  at  that  time,  had  the  Jews,  as  a 
nation,  received  him  with  the  obedience  of  faith :  but  they 
received  him  not.  John  i.  11.  Even  the  whole  world  felt  the 
presence  of  its  rightful  king,  through  the  restraint  which  his 
presence  had  put  upon  the  powers  of  darkness.  Wars  in  a 
great  measure  had  ceased  throughout  the  earth ;  and  according 
to  some  histories  of  those  times,  the  oracles  of  heathenism  were 
silent.  We  see  nothing  incredible  in  these  accounts  given  us 
by  early  Christian  writers,  because  Satan,  the  author  of  them, 
was,  as  it  were,  cast  out  of  his  house  and  respited  from  the 
abyss,  only  until  the  Lord  should  be  received  by  his  people,  if 
they  would  receive  him.  This  was  the  period  represented  in 
the  allegory,  of  his  walking  through  dry  places  in  search  of 
rest,  but  not  finding  it. 

At  the  close  of  our  Lord's  ministry  this  condition  was 
changed.  The  kingdom  was  withdrawn,  and  the  Son  of  Man 
ascended  up  where  he  was  before.  The  hour  (or  season)  of  the 
power  of  darkness  returned.  Satan,  the  prince  of  darkness, 
resumed  his  possessions,  and  reinstated  himself  in  his  former 
sway,  with  intenser  energies  than  ever  before.  He  found  his 
house  prepared  to  receive  him.  The  fulfilment  of  this  allegori- 
cal prophecy  may  be  read,  in  its  beginning,  in  the  history  of 
the  crucifixion,  and,  in  its  sequel,  in  the  history  of  the  Jewish 
war  by  Josephus.     According  to  his  description  of  the  enormi- 


THE  JEWS  AT  THE  CLOSE  OF  OUR  LORD'S  MINISTRY.       125 

ties  of  sin  and  cruelty  practised  by  the  leaders  of  the  factions 
and  their  adherents,  the  nation,  during  the  remaining  short 
period  of  its  existence,  may  be  regarded  as  the  impersonation 
of  Satan — a  demoniac  of  gigantic  proportions  and  energies, 
saved  from  self-destruction  only  by  the  destroying  sword  of 
Rome.* 

The  allegory  thus  interpreted,  is  in  part  parallel  with  the 
Saviour's  explicit  prophecy  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  as 
recorded  in  Matt,  xxiv.,  Mark  xiii.,  and  Luke  xxi.,  but  with 
this  diflFerence  that  the  prophecy  foretells  the  outward  facts 
which  were  to  be  developed  in  providence  and  recorded  in 
history,  whereas  the  stress  of  the  allegory  lies  upon  the  Satanic 
influence  working  underneath  the  surface  of  things — in  fact,  in 
the  very  heart  of  the  nation,  which  resulted  in  its  destruction. 
It  should  be  observed,  however,  that  the  mercy  of  God  res- 
trained their  madness,  and  postponed  their  calamity  until  the 
Gospel  had  been  universally  preached  to  the  nation,  under  the 
administration  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  See  note  on  Acts  iii.  19 — 21. 

Matt.  xii.  46 — 50.  "  While  he  yet  talked  to  the  people, 
behold  his  mother  and  his  brethren  stood  without,  desiring  to 
speak  with  him.  Then  one  said  unto  him,  Behold,  thy  mother 
and  thy  brethren  stand  without,  desiring  to  speak  with  thee. 
But  he  answered  and  said  unto  him  that  told  him.  Who  is  my 
mother?  and  who  are  my  brethren?  And  he  stretched  forth 
his  hand  toward  his  disciples,  and  said.  Behold  my  mother 
and  my  brethren!  For  whosoever  shall  do  the  will  of  my 
Father  which  is  in  heaven,  the  same  is  my  brother,  and  sister, 
and  mother." 

The  force  of  this  remark  of  the  Saviour  lies  in  the  contrast 
tacitly  drawn  by  him,  between  mankind  as  fallen  and  man  as 
redeemed ;  between  the  Adam  of  Eden  and  himself  as  the  second 
Adam,  and  their  respective  races.  Augustine  strikingly  repre- 
sents the  whole  human  race  as,  in  a  certain  sense,  only  two  men 
— the  first  and  the  second  Adam,  the  race  of  each  being  sum- 

*  Josephus,  Pref.  4,  says,  "  It  appears  to  me  that  the  misfortunes  of  all  men, 
from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  if  they  be  compared  to  those  of  the  Jews, 
are  not  so  considerable  as  they  were;  while  the  authors  of  them  were  not 
foreif/ners  neither  "  (k-m  toutoiv  airn;  oiSu:  uK\c<bu\'j;. )  This  agrees  with  the  Saviour's 
prediction.  Matt.  xxiv.  31;  Mark  xiii.  19;  Luke  xxi.  23,  24.  In  Book  V., 
chap.  xiii.  §  6,  he  says:  "And  here  I  cannot  but  speak  my  mind,  and  what  the 
concern  I  am  under  dictates  to  me,  and  it  is  this:  I  suppose  that  had  the 
Romans  made  any  longer  delay  in  coming  against  these  villains  (u/jtx/wsuc)  that 
the  city  would  either  have  been  swallowed  up  by  the  ground  opening  upon 
them,  (ir  been  overflowed  by  water,  or  else  been  destroyed  by  such  thunder  as 
the  country  of  Sodom  perished  by;  for  it  had  brought  forth  a  generation  of 
men  much  more  atheistial  than  were  those  that  suffered  such  punishments ; 
for  by  their  madness  it  was,  that  all  the  people  came  to  be  destroyed."  See 
Matt.  xi.  20—24. 


126  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

med  up  and  represented  in  their  respective  Head.*  In  the 
passage  under  consideration,  our  Lord  spoke  as  the  Adam  or 
Head  of  his  redeemed  race,  which  he  was  to  gather  out  of  the 
race  of  the  fallen  Adam,  and  transfer  to,  and  as  it  were,  to 
ingraft  into  himself  as  a  new  stock,  so  that  thev  should  be- 
come a  new  and  distinct  family  or  kindred  of  human  nature — a 
new  world  of  mankind.  In  that  new  world,  the  distinctions  of 
mother,  sister,  and  brother,  the  Saviour  taught,  would  all  be 
absorbed  in  a  higher,  holier,  closer,  more  endearing,  and  more 
enduring  relation — that  of  perfect  union  between  all  his  re- 
deemed to  each  other  and  to  him,  and  through  him  to  the 
Father,  by  one  and  the  same  tie — the  Holy  Spirit. 

Anticipating  the  consummation  of  the  glorious  work,  upon 
which  he  had  entered,  he  points  to  his  disciples,  as  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  whole  family  of  his  redeemed,  and  says: 
"Behold  my  true  and  lasting  kindred.  These  and  such  as 
these,  who  do  the  will  of  my  Father,  are  in  the  Divine  scheme 
and  purpose  more  closely  allied  to  me  than  any  can  possibly  be 
by  ties  of  blood  and  earthly  kindred,  which  are  frail  and  soon 
broken,  and  when  once  broken,  can  never  be  renewed  in  their 
blessed  influences,  except  through  the  covenant  of  redemption." 
We  should  mistake  the  meaning  greatly  were  we  to  suppose  the 
Saviour  intended  to  speak  lightly  of  his  kinsfolk,  or  dispa- 
ragingly of  them,  except  as  being,  like  all  others,  even  his 
disciples,  to  whom  he  pointed,  of  the  race  of  the  fallen  Adam, 
and  needing  alike  to  be  redeemed  by  his  death  and  glorified  by 
his  Spirit,  by  being  created  anew  in  his  image  as  the  second 
Adam.  Then  all  will  stand  in  equal  nearness  to  him,  whether 
mother,  brother,  sister,  or  unallied  by  kindred  or  any  earthly 
affinity,  otherwise  than  through  the  common  Father  of  the 
race,  whose  nature  he  took. 

Matt.  xiir.  The  parables  or  similitudes  of  the  kingdom 
contained  in  this  chapter,  belong  in  part  to  the  category  of 
public  and  in  part  to  the  category  of  private  instruction.  See 
note  on  Matt.  iv.  17.  To  the  former  we  assign  the  parables  of 
the  sower,  of  the  tares,  of  the  mustard  seed,  of  the  leaven, 
verse  34.  To  the  latter  category  we  assign  the  parables  of  the 
hid  treasure,  of  the  merchant  seeking  goodly  pearls,  and  of 
the  net  cast  into  the  sea.  The  exjjlanation  of  the  parables 
of  the  sower,  verses   18 — 23,  and  of  the  tares  of  the   field, 

*  "  Prinms  homOj  Adam  sic  olim  defunctus  est,  ut  tamen  post  ilium  secundus 
homo  sit  Cliristus;  cum  tot  hominum  millia  inter  ilium  et  hunc  orta  sint.  Et 
ideo  manifestum  est,  pertinei'e  ad  ilium,  omnem  qui  ex  ilia,  successioue  propa- 
gatus  nascitur;  sicut  ad  istum  pertinet  omnis  qui  gratiae  largitate  in  illo 
nascitur.  Unde  fit  ut  totum  genus  humanum  quodara  modo  sint  homines  duo; 
primus  et  secundus." 


SIMILITUDES   OF   THE    KINGDOM.  127 

verses  37 — 43,  we  also  assign  to  the  category  of  private  instruc- 
tion. 

Our  Lord's  public  similitudes  of  the  kingdom  are  expository 
of  his  proclamation  of  the  kingdom,  iv.  17  ;  ix.  35;  x.  7,  and 
therefore  belong  to  his  functions,  as  preacher  of  the  kingdom. 
Most  of  them  very  clearly  intimate,  that  there  would  be  some 
delay  in  its  outward  manifestation  and  establishment.  Thus, 
by  the  parable  of  the  tares  of  the  field,  the  people  were  taught 
that  the  kingdom  would  not  appear  until  the  time  represented 
by  the  harvest  should  come,  which  implies  that  the  time  required 
for  the  culture  and  growth  of  the  seed  sown  must  precede  it. 
In  the  parable  of  the  nobleman,  Luke  xix.  15,  the  interval 
between  his  first  and  second  advent,  and  the  establishment  of 
his  kingdom,  was  shadowed  forth  by  the  nobleman's  departure, 
absence,  and  return.  In  the  parable  of  the  mustard  seed,  it  is 
the  tree  which  represented  the  kingdom,  but  the  tree  was  the 
slow  product  of  the  seed,  then  about  to  be  planted.  The  hidden 
leaven  which  required  time  to  produce  its  effect,  was  another 
allegory  of  the  same  import.  Thus,  by  these  parables  the 
people  were  taught,  that  although  the  kingdom  was  then  nigh 
— at  hand,  indeed,  in  the  very  midst  of  them,  Luke  xvii.  21, 
as  a  nation,  yet  for  some  cause,  which  he  did  not  publicly 
explain,  it  would  not  immediately  appear.  It  was  this  seeming 
incongruity,  probably,  that  gave  occasion  to  the  inquiry  of  the 
Pharisees,  Luke  xvii.  20,  "  ^V^len  the  kingdom  of  God  should 
come."  The  Lord,  as  well  as  John  the  Baptist,  had  preached 
to  them  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was  at  hand  ;  but  it  did  not 
outAvardly  appear.  His  parables  significantly  intimated  that  it 
would  not  immediately  cqjpear.  How,  then,  could  it  be  at  hand? 
When  will  it  appear?  This  was  their  question.  But  the  ques- 
tion touched  upon  a  mystery,  about  which  they  had  no  right  to 
inquire.  The  kingdom  had  come  to  the  nation,  and  was,  so  to 
speak,  in  the  midst  of  them,  if  the  nation  would  accept  it,  with 
the  obedience  of  faith.  They  were  concerned  to  know  simply  the 
fact,  and  the  duty  which  the  fact  imposed  on  them  was  to  accept 
it.  They  had  no  right  to  know  what  God  had  resolved  to  do 
upon  their  disobedience  and  sinful  rejection  of  the  kingdom. 
This  was  a  part  and  parcel  of  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom 
which  it  was  not  given  to  them  to  know,  verse  11.  Indeed  they 
could  not  fully  be  made  known  to  them  without  a  full  disclosure 
of  the  consequences  of  their  rejection  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  of  his 
death,  resurrection,  and  ascension,  of  the  new  dispensation  of 
grace,  and  of  his  second  coming  at  the  close  of  it. 

These  considerations  show  the  importance  of  the  distinction 
before  taken.  Matt.  iv.  17,  between  our  Lord's  public  functions 
as  a  minister  of  the  circumcision,  and  his  private  functions  as 


128  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

a  teacher  of  disciples.  His  public  functions  were  discharged 
in  strict  accordance  with  the  legal  economy  to  which  the  nation 
was  then  subject.  The  duty  of  the  nation  was,  to  have  faith 
in  him,  as  their  Messiah  come,  and  to  become  willing  subjects 
of  the  kingdom  he  preached,  and  that  too  as  subjects  of  the 
law.  Exod.  xix.  5.  That  was  the  sum  of  it.  His  public 
instructions,  therefore,  were  founded  on  the  then  prese7it  truth 
and  the  obligations  which  the  law  under  which  they  lived  imposed 
on  the  nation  in  consequence  thereof.  His  private  instructions 
to  his  disciples,  on  the  other  hand,  were  chiefly  bottomed  on 
foreseen  events,  and  consequently  looked  forward  to  the  dispen- 
sation of  grace,  about  to  be  established,  through  their  instru- 
mentality, at  least  in  part.  This  was  a  mystery  of  the  king- 
dom, which  it  was  given  to  them  to  know,  verse  11,  and  which 
he  explained  to  them  from  time  to  time  as  far  as  they  were 
able  to  bear  (comprehend)  it.  See  Matt.  xvi.  21 — 23 ;  John 
xvi.  12. 

It  is  very  observable,  however,  that  the  disciples,  with  the 
knowledge  they  then  had,  were  incapable  of  fully  understand- 
ing the  mysteries  involved  or  shadowed  forth  in  these  parables. 
They  did  not  at  that  time  know,  that  their  Master  would  be 
rejected  and  put  to  death,  nor  the  purpose  of  God  to  cast  off 
their  nation  for  a  time,  and  establish  an  economy  of  grace,  for 
all  nations.  Hence  these  events  are  not  so  much  as  alluded  to 
in  the  explanation  of  the  parables  of  the  sower  and  of  the 
tares,  although  these  parables  are  applicable  to  all  time,  until 
the  Lord's  second  coming,  at  the  end  of  this  world.  Yet  the 
explanations  given  were  sufficient,  with  the  inspiration  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  for  their  future  instruction,  John  xvi.  13,  and 
form  an  important  part  of  those  evangelical  truths  out  of 
which  the  sublime  doctrines  of  the  Epistles  of  the  apostles  are 
derived. 

A  question  has  been  made  by  some  theologians,  whether  the 
Epistles  contain  an^  doctrines  not  taught  in  the  Gospels.  If 
the  foregoing  observations  are  well  founded,  we  may  answer, 
that  undoubtedly  they  do  contain  doctrines  which  are  not  to  be 
found  in  our  Lord's  public  instruction  of  the  people.*  But  if 
his  private  instructions  to  his  disciples  and  others,  who  sought 
him  with  a  teachable  spirit,  be  carefully  considered,  they  will 
be  found  to  contain  the  germ  of  all  the  great  doctrines  of  the 
Epistles.     Yet  in  the  germ  only ;  for  our  Lord  in  his  very  last 

*  Perhaps  we  should  distinguish  also  between  the  public  instructions  of  our 
Lord  before  and  after  the  death  of  John  the  Baptist.  John's  death  was  an  epoch 
in  the  nation's  trial,  as  we  shall  have  occasion  to  show  hereafter,  and  we  may 
observe  a  marked  difference  in  our  Lord's  public  discourses  after  that  event. 
See  the  sixth  and  subsequent  chapters  of  John's  Gospel. 


PARABLE  OF  THE  SOWER  AND  OF  THE  TARES.      129 

discourse  with  them,  before  he  suffered,  designedly  forbore  to 
enhirge  upon  and  develope  the  doctrines  he  touched  upon, 
alleging  expressly  as  the  reason,  their  inability  to  bear  them. 
John  XV.  26 ;  xvi.  12,  13 ;  Acts  i.  8 ;  Luke  xxiv.  49.  Many 
things  Avhich  he  thus  intimated  during  his  intercourse  Avith 
them  could  not  be  understood,  except  in  the  light  of  coming 
events,  and  for  that  reason,  we  suppose,  he  left  their  develop- 
ment to  the  Holy  Spirit. 

"VVe  add  a  few  observations  upon  particular  portions  of  this 
chapter.  Verses  3 — 8  and  19 — 23.  The  great  instrumentality 
by  which  the  kingdom  is  to  be  introduced,  is  preaching  "  the 
word  of  the  kingdom,"  verse  19,  and  the  design  of  the  parable 
of  the  sower  is  to  set  forth  the  effect  of  preaching,  during  all 
time,  until  the  kingdom  shall  come  with  power.  Observation 
and  experience  show,  that  the  parable  is  not  to  be  limited  to 
our  Lord's  personal  ministry.  It  has,  therefore,  an  evangelical 
sense  and  application,  and  for  that  reason  chiefly  it  was  pri- 
vately explained  to  the  disciples  as  one  of  the  mysteries  of  the 
kingdom.  It  sets  forth  the  chief  impediments  in  the  way  of 
this  instrumentality,  and  accounts  for  its  limited  success :  They 
are,  the  ever-vigilant  and  active  opposition  of  Satan,  tribula- 
tions, and  persecutions,  worldly  cares,  and  the  delusive  love  of 
riches.  Verses  19 — 22.  The  parable  gives  no  intimation  that 
the  institution  of  preaching  will  ultimately  overcome  and  sur- 
vive them,  or  have  unobstructed  progress  and  success.  But 
elsewhere  we  are  taught,  that  preaching  itself  shall  cease,  when 
the  knowledge  of  the  Lord  shall  everywhere  prevail.  Jer. 
xxxi.  34;  Heb.  viii.  11.  See  Mai.  i.  11,  and  contrast  Matt. 
xiii.  19  with  Rev.  xx.  1 — 3. 

Matt.  xiii.  24 — 30.  The  j^arahle  of  the  tares  of  the  field. 
This  parable  is  an  allegorical  representation  of  the  state  of 
the  world  during  the  interval  between  the  first  and  second 
advent  of  the  Son  of  Man.  It  is  closely  connected  with  the 
parable  just  noticed.  The  principal  character  in  both  is  the 
same — a  sower  of  seed ; — but  the  lessons  inculcated  are  different 
in  several  respects.  The  parable  of  the  sower  sets  forth  the 
scantiness  of  the  crop,  judged  of  by  the  seed  sown,  and  accounts 
for  it  by  various  causes.  This  parable  shows,  that  the  crop 
actually  produced  is  encumbered  by  the  admixture  of  a  worth- 
less growth,  and  explains  how  it  happened.  It  is  a  material 
circumstance  in  this  parable,  that  the  mischief  is  of  such  a 
nature,  and  done  in  such  a  way,  that  it  must  be  endured,  until 
its  power  to  harm  is  spent — that  is,  during  the  whole  period  of 
the  growth,  and  ripening  until  the  harvest.  The  circumstances, 
it  is  obvious,  are  all  taken  from  common  life,  and  the  whole 
action  represented  is  such  as  may  have  frequently  occurred  in 
17 


lEO  NOTES   OX   SCRIPTURE. 

human  affairs,  whicli  if  we  suppose,  we  have  the  case  of  a 
malevolent  wrong  clandestinely  done,  for  which  the  injured 
party  might  justly  demand  exemplary  redress. 

Matt.  xiii.  37 — i3.  It  is  only  in  the  Saviour's  explanation 
of  the  parable  we  perceive  the  sublime  conception  it  envelopes. 

The  field  is  the  world;  the  owner  of  it  is  the  Son  of  Man. 
His  title  to  it  is  by  Divine  constitution  and  covenant;  and  coeval 
with  its  creation.  This  august  Being  is  the  sower.  He  plants 
in  it  the  family  of  man — the  future  subjects  of  his  kingdom. 
Just  then,  Satan  is  permitted  to  enter  and  usurp  his  rights. 
The  usurpation  is  not  immediately  avenged.  At  the  time 
represented  in  the  parable  as  the  seed-time,  he  sends  forth  his 
servants,  and  at  the  same  time  Satan,  with  emulous  and  perse- 
vering, but  malicious  industry,  plants  and  nurtures  his  own 
seed.  But  at  length  the  season  of  harvest  arrives.  It  is  the 
end  of  the  [alcov)  world.  The  Son  of  Man  appears,  assumes 
his  right,  expels  the  adversary,  destroys  his  works,  and,  con- 
trary to  expectation,  exhibits  the  products  of  his  own  care,  in 
beauty  and  glory,  enhanced  by  the  adverse  circumstances  of 
their  culture  and  growth.  Verse  43. 

Will  the  Lord  of  the  field,  when  this  is  done,  destroy  it,  or 
abandon  it  to  eternal  waste?  Will  he  be  content  with  a  single 
harvest,  the  product  of  one  short  summer?  The  parable  does 
not  so  teach.  Rather,  may  we  not  infer,  having  thrust  out 
his  adversary,  he  will  thenceforth  put  it  to  the  uses  for  which 
it  was  originally  designed — so  that  seed  time  and  harvest, 
understood  in  the  sense  of  the  parable,  shall  never  fail.  Gen. 
viii.  22.  Certainly  the  parable  does  not  compel  us  to  believe 
that  the  Lord  will  annihilate  the  earth  at  his  second  coming. 
As  little  does  it  encourage  the  expectation  of  a  millennium  of 
universal  holiness  and  purity  on  earth,  before  that  time. 

The  contrast  between  the  humble  imagery  of  the  parable, 
and  the  magnificent  ideas  and  events  it  represents,  may  be 
designed  to  suggest  the  idea  of  changes,  not  less  magnificent, 
in  the  earth  itself.  Dr.  Goodwin,  a  member  of  the  Westmin- 
ster Assembly  of  Divines,  on  Eph.  i.  21,  says,  "As  Adam  had 
a  world  made  for  him,  so  shall  Jesus  Christ,  the  second  Adam, 
have  a  Avorld  made  for  him.  This  world  was  not  good  enough 
for  him.  He  hath  a  better  appointed  than  that  which  the 
first  Adam  had — a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth,  according  to 
Isaiah  Ixv.  17—25,  and  Ixvi.  22. 

The  central  idea  of  the  parable  is  the  rightful  dominion  of 
the  Son  of  Man  over  the  earth,  according  to  the  eighth  Psalm, 
and  his  right  to  use  it  as  he  pleases,  and  to  have  all  it  yields. 
Even  the  works   of  Satan  are  his,  to  do  with   them  and  to 


PARABLE  OF  THE  NET  CAST  INTO  THE  SEA.      131 

destroy  tliem  when  and  in  "whatever  manner  it  may  please  him. 
Verse  29,  30,  40,  41,  42. 

Matt.  xiii.  44,  45.  The  parables  of  the  hid  treasure  and 
merchant  seeking  goodly  pearls  belong  to  the  category  of 
private  instruction.  See  notes  on  Matt.  iv.  17.  They  were 
privajtely  delivered  to  the  disciples,  and  are  so  plain  that  they 
required  no  explanation,  verse  51.  They  are  called  simili- 
tudes of  the  kingdom,  not  because  they  set  forth  any  quality 
of  the  kingdom  itself,  or  the  manner  of  its  coming,  but  rather 
because  they  portray  the  qualities  and  spii'it  of  those  who  shall 
be  found  worthy  to  enter  it.  They  belong  to  the  same  class 
with  that  of  the  king  taking  an  account  with  his  servants, 
Matt,  xviii.  23 — 35,  although  the  particular  lesson  they  incul- 
cate is  different.  How  strong  the  contrast  between  the  true 
and  sincere  seekers  of  the  kingdom  and  the  Jews  to  whom  our 
Lord  preached,  who  thought  themselves  to  be  such !  See  notes 
on  Matt.  xi.  12. 

Matt.  xiii.  47 — 51.  The  parable  of  the  net  cast  into  the  sea 
also  belongs  to  the  category  of  private  instruction,  and  appears 
to  have  been  especially  intended  for  the  apostles.  It  taught 
them  what  the  result  of  their  labours  would  be,  and  coincides 
in  this  particular  with  the  public  parable  of  the  tares  of  the 
field.  The  fruits  of  their  labours,  however  zealous  and  unre- 
mitted or  carefully  performed,  would  not  be  pure  and  unmixed 
with  evil.  The  churches  they  would  be  sent  forth  to  gather 
and  establish,  would  inevitably  contain  false  as  well  as  faithful 
disciples.  No  efforts  of  theirs  would  or  could  avail  to  prevent, 
what  the  Divine  wisdom  had  seen  fit  to  permit,  until  the  end 
of  the  dispensation  [ahov]  in  which  they  were  to  be  the  first 
labourers.  Satan,  the  adversary  in  the  parable  of  the  tares, 
was  too  vigilant,  too  subtle,  and  too  strong  for  them.  He 
would  mingle  his  seed  with  the  good,  and  in  process  of  time, 
if  not  immediately,  make  even  consecrated  hands  unconsciously 
scatter  it:  or,  adopting  the  imagery  of  the  parable  we  are 
considering,  bring  vile  and  worthless  fishes  within  the  sweep 
of  their  nets,  and  burden  their  arms  with  that  which  must  be 
cast  away  when  they  reach  the  shore  and  their  labour  is  done. 
The  separation  will  then  be  made  by  a  power  and  a  wisdom 
far  greater  than  their  own.     See  notes  on  Acts  ii.  47. 

Matt.  xiii.  52.  "Therefore  every  Scribe  instructed  unto  the 
kingdom  is  like  a  householder  who  bringeth  out  of  his  treasury 
things  new  and  old." 

This  is  a  corollary,  not  from  the  instruction  of  any  of  the 
preceding  parables,  but  from  what  he  had  said,  verses  11 — 17, 
relative  to  their  privileges,  as  his  disciples,  and  the  benefits 
they  should  receive  therefrom.     The  verse  itself  is  another 


132  NOTES   OX   SCRIPTURE. 

similitude,  not  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  of  the  teachers 
the  Lord  designed  to  raise  up  and  instruct  in  its  mysteries. 
Such  were  not  the  Scribes,  who  taught  the  people  the  law. 
They  shut  up  the  kingdom.  Matt,  xxiii.  13.  They  were  blind 
guides,  hypocritical  and  corrupt.  Matt,  xxiii.  13 — 33.  Nor 
were  the  disciples  such  at  that  time.  They  had  scarcely 
received  the  first  lesson  in  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom.  See 
Matt.  xvi.  22;  Luke  xviii.  34;  Mark  ix.  10;  John  xx.  9. 
They  understood  these  parables  only  in  their  most  superficial 
sense.  Hence  the  form  of  this  instruction  was  by  way  of 
parable.  It  was  not  applicable  to  them  as  they  then  were ;  but 
as  they  should  thereafter  be,  when  the  Holy  Spirit  should  unfold 
to  them  the  deep  and  far-reaching  mysteries  of  the  kingdom, 
which  had  been  kept  secret  from  the  beginning  of  the  world. 
Rom.  xvi.  25.  Then  indeed  would  they  be  like  a  householder, 
having  laid  up  in  his  treasury  the  acquisitions  of  many  years, 
sufficient  to  meet  the  constantly  occurring  and  recurring  and 
ever-varying  wants  of  his  numerous  household : — then  would 
they  have  a  treasury  of  Divine  knowledge  of  the  works  and 
ways  of  God  from  the  beginning,  from  which  they  could  bring 
forth  whatever  might  be  needful  or  useful  for  the  instruction, 
comfort,  and  edification  of  those  they  should  be  sent  forth  to 
govern  and  teach.  It  is  not  improbable,  the  Saviour  intended 
to  represent  himself  by  the  householder,  Col.  ii.  3,  as  in  him 
were  laid  up  at  that  time  all  the  treasures  of  Divine  wisdom 
and  knowledge  out  of  which  they,  who  were  of  his  household, 
were  to  be  supplied.  John  xvi.  14.  If  so,  there  was  a  mystery, 
even  in  this  allusion,  to  the  office  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  whom  he 
afterwards  promised,  in  plain  language,  to  send  upon  them, 
inasmuch  as  his  bringing  forth  of  things  new  and  old  from  his 
treasure  of  Divine  wisdom  and  knowledge  for  their  use,  was  to 
be  done  through  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Matt.  xiii.  58.  "  And  he  did  not  many  mighty  works  there, 
because  of  their  unbelief."  Mark,  vi.  5,  adds,  "save  that  he 
laid  his  hands  on  a  few  sick  folk  and  healed  them." 

The  miracles  which  he  performed,  according  to  Mark,  were 
performed,  as  we  suppose,  without  solicitation,  in  proof  of  his 
proclamation  of  the  kingdom.  They  were,  if  we  may  so  express 
it,  official  acts  attesting  his  authority  as  preacher  of  the  king- 
dom. The  miracles  which  he  did  not,  or,  as  Mark  expresses  it, 
could  not,  perform,  were  miracles  of  faith  or  miracles  to  be 
wrought  through  faith  as  a  medium  for  the  transmission  of  his 
Divine  energies  and  powers ;  according  to  the  distinction  before 
taken.  See  notes  on  Matt.  viii.  2,  3.  In  no  other  way  can  we 
explain  the  language  of  Mark  consistently  with  the  infinite  pleni- 
tude of  the  Saviour's  power.  The  defect  was  not  in  him,  but  in 
the  people  of  his  own  country.  Verse  54. 


herod's  testimony  to  Christ's  miracles.  133 


CHAPTER    IV. 

Herod's  Imprisonment  of  John. — John's  Death. — Christ's  Preaching  after  John's 
Death. — Christ's  Miracle  of  multiplying  bread. — Christ  Walks  on  the  Sea. — 
Christ's  power  over  Nature. — Peter's  attempt  to  walk  on  the  Sea. — The 
Apostles  acknowledge  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God. — Christ's  Journey  towards 
Tyre. — He  again  multiplies  bread. — The  False  Doctrine  of  the  Pharisees. — 
Christ  as  the  Son  of  Man. — Peter's  Confession  of  Christ. — The  Keys  given  to 
Peter. — Our  Lord's  names,  Jesus  and  Christ. — Christ's  rebuke  of  Peter — The 
value  of  the  Soul. — Christ's  title,  the  Son  of  Man. — The  Transfiguration. 

Matthew  xiv.  1,  2.  "At  that  time  Herod  the  Tetrarch  heard 
of  the  fame  of  Jesus.  And  he  said  to  his  servants :  This  is 
John  the  Baptist.  He  has  risen  from  the  dead,  and  therefore 
mighty  works  do  show  forth  themselves  in  him."  Mark  vi. 
14—16;  Lukeix.  7—9. 

Although  our  Lord's  country  was  Galilee,  which  was  within 
Herod's  jurisdiction,  it  is  evident  from  Luke  xxiii.  8,  that 
Herod  never  saw  him  until  the  day  of  his  crucifixion.  Yet  as 
he  went  ahout  all  Galilee,  preaching  in  the  synagogues,  and 
performing  miracles,  Matt.  iv.  23 — 25,  during  John's  imprison- 
ment, we  naturally  inquire  how  it  happened  that  Herod  had 
not  heard  of  him  before.  The  Evangelists,  though  they  all 
concur  in  the  fact,  do  not  explain  it.  Some  learned  men  sup- 
pose that  Herod  had  been  absent  from  his  tetrarchy,  Luke  iii.  1, 
during  this  part  of  our  Lord's  public  ministry,  and  did  not 
return  until  about  that  time.  If  this  be  the  true  explanation, 
it  accounts  sufficiently  for  John's  being  allowed  by  Herod  to 
remain  in  prison  during  so  long  a  time,  without  any  further 
proceeding  against  him.  But  however  this  may  be,  the  united 
testimony  of  the  three  Evangelists  leaves  no  room  to  doubt  the 
fact.  Herod  was  well  acquainted  with  Jewish  opinions,  and  no 
doubt  had  the  same  idea  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  which 
the  people  had.  He  appears  to  have  attached  the  idea  of  per- 
sonal identity  to  the  body,  as  well  as  the  soul  of  the  Baptist, 
and  must  have  supposed,  therefore,  that  the  severed  head  which 
had  been  delivered  to  Hcrodias,  perhaps  in  his  presence,  had 
been  brought  back  to  the  rest  of  the  body,  and  united  to  it  in 
some  miraculous  way. 

It  is  more  important  to  observe,  that  this  extraordinary  way 
of  accounting  for  our  Lord's  miracles  shows  conclusively  that 
Herod  did  not  doubt  in  the  least  the  accounts  he  had  received. 
The  evidence  must  have  been  incontestable,  or  he  would  not 
have  imagined  a  greater  miracle,  as  the  most  reasonable  way 
of  accounting  for  them.  We  may  regard,  then,  these  verses,  as 
Herod  the  Tetrarch's  testimony  to  the  truth  and  reality  of  the 


134  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

miraculous  works  of  Jesus ;  and  in  that  view  the  Evangelist 
appears  to  have  introduced  his  saying  in  this  place.  Perhaps 
he  also  meant  to  set  in  contrast  the  reasonings  and  belief  of 
this  wicked  man  (whose  chief  distinctions  were  those  of  infamy 
and  sin,  see  notes  on  Luke  xxiii.  8,)  with  the  blasphemous 
insinuations  of  the  self-righteous  Pharisees.  Matt.  ix.  34;  xii. 
24,  Regarded,  however,  as  the  testimony  of  the  Tetrarch, 
who  had  the  means  of  investigation  at  his  command,  to  the 
truth  of  our  Lord's  miracles,  the  argument  deducible  from  it, 
is  analogous  to  that  derived  from  the  conduct  of  Herod  the 
king.    See  notes  on  Matt.  ii. 

It  may  be  remarked,  also,  that  these  verses  conclude  the 
first,  or  what  we  have  called  the  argumentative,  part  of  this 
Gospel.  The  Harmonists  have  shown,  that  from  the  fourth  to 
the  fourteenth  chapter,  the  narrative  does  not  follow  the  order 
of  time,  see  Whistons  Short  Vieiv  of  the  Harmony  of  the 
Four  Evangelists,  pp.  100 — 103,  and  Le  Clerc's  Harmony 
Dissert.,  2  can.  i,,  while  the  remainder  of  it  does  so,  very 
nearly.  Whiston  maintains  that  the  matters  contained  in  these 
chapters  have  been  misplaced — that  originally  they  stood  in 
much  the  same  order  as  they  do  in  Mark;  whose  Gospel  he 
regards,  erroneously,  we  think,  as  an  epitome  of  this.  The 
view  which  we  have  taken  is,  that  an  orderly  plan  is  pursued  in 
the  first  fourteen  chapters  of  this  Gospel  as  they  now  stand; 
but  it  is  the  plan  of  an  argument.  See  notes  on  Matt.  i.  1.  If 
such  a  plan  is  discernible,  it  is  a  moral  demonstration  that  we 
have  this  Gospel  in  the  order  in  which  it  was  written.  How 
far  this  hypothesis  is  supported  by  the  preceding  notes  is  left 
to  the  judgment  of  the  reader.  Whatever  precedes  the  death 
of  John  the  Baptist,  relates  to  our  Lord's  mission  to  that  people 
as  the  Messiah  or  Christ.  All  that  follows  the  death  of  John 
the  Baptist,  relates  to  his  mission  to  the  people  as  individuals, 
as  Saviour  and  Son  of  Man.  In  respect  to  his  mission  as 
Christ,  the  appeal  was  national.  Judgments  were  pronounced 
against  cities  and  communities  as  such ;  whereas,  when  he 
entered  upon  his  further  mission  as  Son  of  Man,  and  Saviour, 
his  appeal  was  made  to  individuals,  as  many  as  would  come  to 
him — according  to  John  i.  11,  12. 

Matt.  xiv.  3.  "  For  Herod  had  laid  hold  on  John  and 
bound  him,  and  put  him  in  prison  for  Herodias'  sake,  his  bro- 
ther Philip's  wife." 

The  Evangelist  had  before  alluded  to  the  imprisonment  of 
John  the  Baptist,  but  without  mentioning  the  cause  or  any  of 
the  circumstances  of  it,  iv.  12.  This  was  necessary,  to  mark 
precisely  the  commencement  of  our  Lord's  public  ministry. 
See  notes  on  Matt.  iv.  12 — 17.     Now  he  relates  the  cause  of  the 


JOHN  S   IMPRISONMENT   AND    DEATH.  135 

imprisonment  and  the  termination  of  it  by  way  of  introduction 
to  the  narrative  which  is  to  follow ;  for  having  mentioned  the 
death  and  burial  of  John,  he  takes  up  the  history  from  that 
time  onward,  very  nearly  in  the  order  of  time. 

Matt.  xiv.  4,  5.  "  For  John  said  unto  him  it  is  not  lawful 
for  thee  to  have  her,  and  when  he  would  have  put  him  to 
death,  he  feared  the  multitude,  because  they  counted  him  as  a 
prophet." 

John  the  Baptist  was  an  authorized  and  an  authoritative 
teacher  of  the  laAv,  to  which  Herod  and  Herodias  were  subject. 
In  this  he  was  superior  to  the  apostles  at  that  time.  Matt,  xxiii. 
3;  and  see  notes  on  Matt.  iii.  1,  2.  His  influence  with  the 
people  may  be  judged  of  by  the  fears  of  Herod.  Impelled  by 
passion  and  the  instigation  of  Herodias,  his  intention  was  to 
put  him  to  death,  but  his  fears  restrained  him  at  the  moment. 
This  was  a  providential  expedient  for  the  preservation  of  John. 
And  if  we  may  suppose,  that  soon  after  imprisoning  John,  he 
went  to  Rome,  and  was  detained  there  by  public  affairs,  we 
should  regard  his  absence  as  another  providential  expedient  for 
the  same  purpose.  If  to  this  we  may  add,  that  he  put  John  to 
death  soon  after  his  return,  we  reasonably  account  for  his  not 
having  heard  of  the  miracles  of  the  Lord  Jesus  until  after  that 
event,  and  for  his  extraordinary  conjecture  that  he  was  John 
the  Baptist  risen  from  the  dead. 

Matt.  xiv.  6—9.  "  But  when  Herod's  birth-day  was  kept, 
the  daughter  of  Herodias  danced  before  them,  and  pleased 
Herod ;  whereupon  he  promised  with  an  oath  to  give  her  what- 
soever she  would  ask.  And  she  being  before  instructed  of  her 
mother,  said :  Give  me  here  John  Baptist's  head  in  a  charger. 
And  the  king  was  sorry:  nevertheless  for  the  oath's  sake, 
and  them  which  sat  with  him  at  meat,  he  commanded  it  to  be 
given  her." 

These  verses  give  us  a  glimpse  of  the  festivities  of  the  great 
men  of  that  day,  and  may  remind  the  reader  of  a  similar  cruelty 
of  one  of  the  kings  of  Egypt.  Gen  xl.  19,  20.  As  the  influence 
of  Herodias  secured  the  imprisonment  of  John — which  we  have 
seen  was  the  event  upon  which  the  commencement  of  our  Lord's 
public  ministry  was  suspended,  see  notes  on  Matt.  iv.  12 — 17 
— so  it  was  her  influence  which  occasioned  his  death ;  which,  as 
we  shall  see,  was  another  epoch  in  the  trial  of  the  nation. 
Strange  that  such  great  things  should  depend  upon  the  malice 
and  cunning  of  such  a  woman.  That  her  influence  over  Herod, 
her  uncle,  see  notes  on  Luke  xxiii.  8,  was  very  great,  is  proved 
by  a  passage  in  Josephus,  [Aiitiq.  book  xviii.  chap,  vii.,)  where 
he  records  an  instance  of  her  pertinacity  and  of  Herod's  yield- 
ing to  her,  against  his  will  and  better  judgment,  as  it  proved  to 


136  NOTES   ON   SCKIPTURE. 

be,  in  a  measure  ■whicli  resulted  in  the  loss  of  liis  tetrarcliy,  and 
banishment  to  Lyons.  That  her  influence  was  not  sufficient  to 
procure  the  death  instead  of  the  imprisonment  of  John  upon 
his  first  arrest,  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  special  providence  of 
God,  whose  designs  of  mercy  to  the  nation,  and  of  judgment, 
required  the  preservation  of  his  life  for  a  time.  See  notes  on 
Luke  iii.  20,  2L  But  when  those  designs  were  accomplished, 
providential  restraints  were  withdrawn ;  Herod  was  given  up 
to  the  evil  influences  by  which  he  was  surrounded,  and  the 
carousals  of  his  birth-day,  his  rash  and  wicked  oath,  by  which 
he  put  himself  in  the  power  of  a  giddy  girl,  became  the  occa- 
sion of  John's  death.  This  was  the  first  seal  put  upon  the 
nation's  doom. 

Matt.  xiv.  10,  "And  he  sent  and  beheaded  John  in  the 
prison." 

According  to  Lightfoot,  Harm.  §  46,  John  was  beheaded  a 
little  before  the  time  of  the  passover,  A.  D.  32.  He  founds 
this  opinion,  in  part,  upon  John  vi.  6.  John  began  his  ministry 
about  three  years  before — that  is,  about  the  time  of  the  feast 
of  the  passover,  A.  D.  29,  and  he  was  imprisoned  about  the 
month  of  October  in  the  year  following,  ^.  e.  A.  D.  30,  so  that 
"  his  story  is  of  three  years'  space,  the  better  half  of  which  he 
preached  at  liberty,  and  the  other  half  he  lay  in  prison." 

Consequently  our  Lord  had  been  preaching  about  a  year  and 
a  half  when  John  was  beheaded.  During  this  time  he  commis- 
sioned the  twelve  apostles,  and  sent  them  forth  to  preach  the 
kingdom,  from  which  mission  they  returned  at  or  about  the 
time  of  the  death  of  John.  Mark  vi.  30.  See  Lightfoot, 
Harm.  §  47.  It  does  not  appear  that  he  sent  the  twelve  forth 
again  upon  a  similar  mission  during  his  public  ministry.  Their 
second  mission  followed  his  resurrection  and  ascension. 

However  this  may  be,  the  death  of  John  the  Baptist  was  the 
crisis  of  the  nation's  trial.  While  John  lived,  it  was,  in  one 
sense,  in  the  power  of  the  nation  to  receive  him ;  at  least,  he  was 
in  the  midst  of  them  to  be  received.  Now  it  was  too  late,  unless 
God  would  raise  him  from  the  dead,  as  Herod  imagined  he  had, 
and  send  him  to  them  again.  See  Acts  iii.  20.  Having  rejected 
John,  they  could  not  nationally  receive  Jesus ;  for,  according 
to  the  Divine  plan,  both  must  be  nationally  received,  or  both 
nationally  rejected.  The  personal  ministry  of  each  Avas  insep- 
arably connected  with  the  personal  ministry  of  the  other,  so  far 
as  the  nation,  as  such,  was  concerned,  so  as  to  constitute  one 
great  moral  trial,  and  to  issue  in  the  same  result.  Hence  our 
Lord  not  only  joined  his  ministry  with  John's,  (Matt.  iii.  15, 
and  see  notes,)  but  applied  the  predictions  of  the  prophets  con- 
cerning his   sufferings  and  death  to  John.    Mark  ix.  12,  13. 


Christ's  preaching  after  john's  death.  137 

Each  bore  the  strongest  testimony  to  the  other,  to  prevent,  if 
possible,  the  rejection  of  either  bj  the  nation.  See  notes  on 
Luke  iii.  20,  21.  But  the  time  allowed  for  their  change  of 
mind,  in  respect  to  John,  expired  at  his  death ;  and  from  that 
time  onward  we  observe  an  important  change  in  our  Lord's 
public  and  private  discourses  and  miracles,*  which  we  account 

*  The  correctness  of  this  remark,  which  is  very  important,  will  appear  as 
we  proceed.  At  present  it  may  be  sufficient  to  say,  that  the  public  miracles 
of  our  Lord,  before  the  death  of  John,  were  miracles  of  healing,  of  raising 
the  dead,  and  casting  out  devils.  The  miracle  of  multiplying  food  was  not 
performed  till  after  that  event,  and,  as  we  shall  see,  for  a  particular  end.  As 
to  his  instructions  to  his  disciples,  it  was  not  till  after  the  death  of  John  he 
spoke  plainli/  of  his  sufferings,  death,  and  resurrection.  Matt.  xvi.  21.  As 
examples  of  his  public  instruction  of  the  people  before  the  death  of  John,  the 
reader  may  be  refered  to  the  sermon  on  the  mount.  Matt.  v.  vi.  vii.  chaps., 
and  his  public  parables  in  Matt,  xiii.,  the  great  themes  of  which  are  the  law 
of  the  kingdom  he  preached  and  the  manner  of  its  coming.  To  these  we  may 
add  his  public  discourse  at  Jerusalem,  in  John  chap,  v.,  the  leading  design  of 
which  was  to  vindicate  his  authority  as  Son  of  Man  and  Lord  of  the  Sabbath- 
day.  See  notes  on  Matt.  xii.  8.  As  an  example  of  his  public  teaching  after 
the  death  of  John  the  Baptist,  we  may  refer  to  the  discourse  in  John  vi.  26 — 52, 
delivered  at  Capernaum  shortly  after  his  first  miracle  of  multiplying  bread, 
while  the  impression  it  made  was  fresh  upon  the  minds  of  the  people.  John 
vi.  20.  In  this  discourse  he  does  not  appear  as  a  preaclier  of  the  kingdom, 
urging  it  upon  them  in  their  national  capacity,  but  as  the  Son  of  IMan,  having 
power  to  save  and  give  eternal  life  to  as  many  as  would  individually  receive 
him.  John  i.  12.  Taking  the  miracle  he  had  just  performed  as  his  theme  or 
text,  he  discourses  about  himself  as  the  true  bread.  He  told  them  the  bread 
with  which  he  had  just  before  miraculously  fed  them  to  satiety,  was  not  the 
bread  of  heaven,  though  it  was  the  product  of  his  heavenly  powers.  It  was 
pei'ishable  food,  verse  27.  Nor  was  the  bread  that  Moses  gave  their  fathers 
the  bread  of  heaven,  verse  32.  That  also  was  perishable  food.  Exod.  xvi.  19,  20, 
The  bread  of  God  is  the  Son  of  Man,  who  came  down  from  heaven  to  give 
his  life  for  the  world,  verses  27,  33,  48 — 51,  of  which  the  bread  of  the  miracle 
and  the  bread  Moses  had  given  tueir  fathers,  were  mere  symbols.  Here  we 
observe  a  plain  allusion  to  his  death,  which  presupposed  his  rejection  as  Mes- 
siah by  the  nation,  now  made  sure  to  enlightened  human  judgment  hj  the 
rejection  of  John.  We  observe  also  an  obscui'e  allusion  to  his  elect  people  of 
grace,  verses  39,  44,  which  presupposed  the  rejection  of  Israel,  according  to 
the  flesh,  as  the  elect  people  or  nation.  We  notice  also,  that  the  appeal  to  his 
hearers  is  personal  throughout,  as  individuals,  not  collectively,  as  a  part  of  the 
nation  and  representing  it.  This  change  of  address  was  a  consequence  of 
the  new  posture  which  the  nation  took  at  the  death  of  John.  Though  the 
kingdom  was  not  actually  withdrawn  or  taken  away  from  them  until  the 
close  of  bis  ministry,  (or  after  it,  as  has  been  suggested  in  the  notes  on 
Acts  iii.  19,  21;  see  Matt.  xxi.  43;  Luke  xvii.  21;  x.  9,)  yet  it  was  no  longer 
preached,  as  at  the  beginning  of  the  Lord's  public  ministry,  and  urged  upon 
the  people  for  national  acceptance,  according  to  the  view  taken  in  the  notes 
on  Matthew  xi.  12;  but  instead,  the  Saviour's  public  discourses  and  miracles 
were  designed,  as  before  remarked,  to  prove  that  he  was  the  Son  of  Man, 
sent  into  the  world  by  the  Father,  and  that  he  had  power  to  save  all,  whether 
few  or  many,  who  would  receive  him  with  the  obedience  of  faith.  This  dis- 
course, and  those  in  the  vii.  viii.  and  x.  chapters,  do  not  therefore  properly 
belong  to  his  office  as  a  preacher  of  the  kingdom  or  preacher  of  the  law,  but 
to  his  office  or  relation  to  the  world  as  Son  of  Man  and  Saviour.  But  what 
we  wish  the  reader  especially  to  consider  is,  that  this  change  in  our  Lord's 
public  instruction  of  the  people  took  place  at  the  death  of  John  the  Baptist, 

18 


138  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

for  by  the  new  posture  of  the  nation  in  the  sense  just  explained. 
The  Evangelist  appears  to  have  regarded  the  death  of  John  in 
this  light,  for  he  makes  it.  the  beginning  of  a  new  series  of  nar- 
rations, in  which  he  pursues,  as  Mark  and  Luke  do  throughout 
their  Gospels,  very  nearly  the  order  of  time. 

Matt.  xiv.  13.  "When  Jesus  heard  of  it  [viz.  the  death  of 
John,]  he  departed  thence  by  ship  to  a  desert  place ;  and  when 
the  people  heard  [thereof]  they  followed  him  on  foot  out  of  the 
cities." 

The  Saviour  no  doubt  knew  of  the  death  of  John  before  he 
was  informed  of  it  by  John's  disciples.  He  was  at  that  time  at 
Kazareth,  xiii.  54,  whence  he  departed  to  preach  the  gospel  of 
the  kingdom,  upon  the  imprisonment  of  John,  iv.  17.  The  news 
in  both  instances,  it  is  probable,  was  carried  to  him  from  the 
prison  or  fortress  of  Machaerus,*  situated  at  the  east  of  Jericho 
and  the  river  Jordan,  upon  a  small  stream  which  enters  into  the 
Dead  Sea  from  the  north-east,  which  was  at  a  considerable  dis- 
tance from  Nazareth.  The  point  to  be  especially  noticed  is  that 
dividing  our  Lord's  public  ministry  into  two  portions,  as  before 
suggested,  the  beginning  of  each  is  from  Nazareth. 

Perhaps  it  was  in  order  to  gain  occasion  for  a  new  and  very 
different  display  of  his  miraculous  powers,  John  vi.  6,  our  Lord 
retired  by  ship  to  a  desert  place,  whither  he  knew  he  would  be 
followed  by  multitudes  from  the  cities,  without  making  adequate 
provision  for  their  wants,  attracted  by  his  healing  power,  as  we 
may  infer  from  the  14th  verse.  The  disciples  perceiving  their 
destitute  condition,  proposed,  after  their  sick  had  been  healed, 
to  send  them  away  in  order  that  they  might  buy  food  for  them- 
selves. 

Matt.  xiv.  16.  "But  Jesus  said  unto  them,  They  need  not 
depart,  give  ye  them  to  eat." 

This  command  of  the  Saviour  must  have  struck  the  disciples 
with  great  surprise.     They  knew  how  scanty  their  own  supply 

•wliicli  shows  the  significancy  and  the  importance  of  that  event.  It  proves,  vre 
submit,  that  at  John's  death  the  trial  of  the  nation,  as  such,  was  virtually 
ended,  and  that  the  di-ift,  if  we  may  so  express  it,  of  the  Saviour's  public 
instructions  from  that  time  onward,  was  to  make  or  increase  the  number  of  his 
disciples,  not  to  preach  the  kingdom  in  order  to  its  acceptance  by  the  nation 
in  its  collective  capacity.  Hence,  at  his  final  entry  into  Jerusalem,  Luke  xix. 
41,  44,  and  at  his  final  departure  from  the  temple.  Matt  xxiii.  37 — 39,  he 
spoke  of  the  nation's  visitation  and  trial  as  already  past,  although  he  was  yet 
in  their  midst,  and  the  formal  act  of  rejecting  him  before  Pilate  was  yet  to  be 
performed.  See  notes  on  John  xix.  15.  For  the  nation's  trial  was  in  effect, 
though  not  formally,  closed  when  Herod  beheaded  John. 

*  It  is  supposed  by  some  that  it  was  at  this  place  Herod  celebrated  his  birth- 
day, where  he  had  collected  an  army  against  Aretas,  whos?  daughter  he  had 
married,  and  had  repudiated  for  Herodias'  sake.  See  Grotius  in  loco.  Josephus, 
Aniiq.,  lib.  xviii.  chap.  5.    Cradock,  Harm.,  §  xxvii. 


Christ's  miracle  of  multiplying  bread.         139 

was,  and  the  impossibility  of  buying  sufficient  food  in  such  a 
place  for  so  large  a  company.  How  then  could  they  obey  this 
extraordinary  command  ?  John  vi.  5 — 9.  The  display  of  power 
which  the  Saviour  intended  to  make,  Avas  one  of  which  they  had 
no  conception ;  it  was  a  new  revelation  of  his  character  to  them, 
as  well  as  to  the  multitudes,  who  had  fewer  and  less  favourable 
opportunities  of  observing  it. 

Matt.  xiv.  17.  "And  they  say  unto  him,  We  have  but  five 
loaves  and  two  fishes." 

John,  who  is  a  little  more  particular,  informs  us,  that  the 
loaves  and  fishes  were  not  of  their  own  supplies,  but  belonged 
to  a  lad  {rtacdapcov,  a  boy)  in  the  company;  and  he  adds  an 
expression  of  Andrew's,  which  shows  that  he  thought  them  of 
no  account  for  such  a  purpose:  "But  what  are  they  among  so 
many?"  John  vi.  7,  9. 

Matt.  xiv.  18 — 21.  "He  said,  Bring  them  hither  to  me.  .  .  . 
And  he  took  the  five  loaves  and  the  two  fishes,  and  looking  up 
to  [towards]  heaven,  he  blessed  and  brake  and  gave  the  loaves 
to  the  disciples,  and  the  disciples  to  the  multitude,  and  they  did 
all  eat  and  were  filled;  and  they  took  up  of  the  fragments  that 
remained  twelve  baskets  full.  And  they  that  had  eaten  were 
about  five  thousand  men,  besides  women  and  children." 

This  first  miracle  of  the  kind,  is  recorded  by  the  four  Evan- 
gelists: Mark  vi.  37—44;  Luke  ix.  13 — 17;  John  vi.  5—13. 
It  gave  occasion  to  a  public  discourse,  soon  after,  at  Capernaum, 
which  none  of  the  Evangelists,  except  John,  has  recorded. 
John  vi.  26 — 52 ;  see  foot  note  on  p.  137.  One  other  miracle 
of  the  same  kind  was  performed  soon  after,  near  the  Sea  of 
Galilee,  Matt.  xv.  32—39 ;  Mark  viii.  1—9 ;  but  of  this  neither 
Luke  nor  John  take  notice.  The  first  of  these  miracles,  we  may 
presume,  was  performed  for  the  purpose  of  public  instruction, 
as  we  find  our  Lord  made  it  the  foundation,  or  as  we  may  say, 
the  text  of  an  earnest,  searching  public  discourse,  in  the  syna- 
gogue at  Capernaum,  John  vi.  59,  and  22 — 24,  the  efi"ect  of 
which  was  to  diminish  very*  much  the  number  of  his  professed 
disciples.  John  vi.  QQ.  The  particular  use  our  Lord  made  of 
the  second  of  these  miracles  and  of  the  difference  between  them, 
we  shall  have  occasion  to  notice  hereafter.  See  Matt.  xvi.  8 — 12 ; 
Mark  viii.  16—21. 

In  this  place,  it  is  pertinent  to  remark,  that  this  kind  of 
miracle  is  not  mentioned  in  the  answer  our  Lord  sent  to  John 
the  Baptist.  Matt.  xi.  6.  Nor  is  there  any  express  prophecy 
in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  that  Messiah  should  perform  such 
miracles.  It  is  also  important  to  be  borne  in  mind,  that  no  such 
miracle  was  performed  before  the  death  of  John  the  Baptist, 
by  which  event  the  posture  of  the  nation  as  such,  it  has  been 


140  NOTES   ON   SCKIPTURE. 

remarked,  was  materially  changed.  See  the  note  on  verse  10, 
Hence  we  infer,  that  this  kind  of  miracle  does  not  so  properly 
belong  to  the  Messianic  office  of  our  Lord,  as  to  his  Adamic 
character  or  relations,  and  thus  he  applied  it  to  himself  in  the 
discourse  at  Capernaum,  before  referred  to.  John  vi,  27,  48,  53. 

This  miracle  appears  to  have  impressed  the  popular  mind 
more  strongly  than  any  which  he  had  previously  performed. 
This  is  proved  from  the  resolution  of  the  people,  on  that  occa- 
sion, to  make  him  a  king  by  force,  John  vi.  15,  which  he 
frustrated  by  retirement.  The  reasons  why  such  an  act  could 
not  be  permitted  are  obvious.  The  nation  had  rejected  John 
the  Baptist  and  the  appointed  evidence  of  our  Lord's  Messiah- 
ship,  John  xi.  8,  upon  Avhich  they  were  bound  to  receive 
him,  with  the  obedience  of  the  heart,  and  they  could  not  after- 
wards be  allowed  to  recognize  his  regal  rights,  upon  other 
evidence,  especially  under  the  promptings  of  unholy  and  selfish 
motives.  John  vi.  26. 

But  it  is  more  important  to  our  present  purpose  to  observe, 
that  this  miracle  was  an  exercise  of  our  Lord's  Adamic  power, 
or  of  his  power  as  Son  of  Man,  with  which  he  was  invested 
from  the  beginning,  according  to  the  declaration  of  David. 
Ps.  viii.  6.  In  this  character,  we  have  seen,  he  was  the  Lord 
of  the  world.  All  the  powers  of  nature  were  obedient  to  his 
will.  At  his  bidding,  the  earth  produced  all  he  required,  and 
as  he  required,  without  stint  or  limit.  Water  became  wine  by 
his  Avill.  John  ii.  1 — 10.  A  single  loaf,  a  single  grain,  became 
a  full  supply  for  myriads  of  men.  Philosophically  considered, 
the  miracle  authorizes  the  conclusion  that  the  Saviour's  power 
over  nature  was  absolutely  without  bounds :  for  he  that  could 
make  five  small  loaves  suffice  for  five  thousand  men,  and  leave 
a  surplus  greater  than  the  original  quantity,  could  with  equal 
ease  make  one  loaf  suffice  for  a  thousand  times  that  number, 
because  nothing  short  of  unlimited  power  over  physical  nature 
could  do  either,  and  such  power  can  produce  whatever  may  be 
required,  from  little  or  much,  at  will.* 

On  this  principle  our  Lord  reasoned  with  his  disciples  on  a 

*  It  is  instructive  to  consider  the  argument  our  Lord  deduced  from  this 
miracle.  John  vi.  26 — 58.  It  proved  his  power  to  produce,  at  will,  suitable 
aliment  for  their  bodies.  Hence  he  argued,  that  he  himself,  tcho  had  that  power, 
was  the  tnie  bread,  that  word  being  understood  in  its  literal  and  proper  sense : 
and  as  he  had  shown  them  his  power  to  provide  food  for  their  fainting  bodies, 
they  ought  to  believe  he  was  able  to  supply,  with  equal  ease,  their  spiritual 
natures,  with  the  bread  or  sustenance  they  needed.  As  he  called  himself  bread, 
because  the  miracle  proved  his  power  to  produce  it ;  he  also  called  himself 
the  bread  of  life,  because  the  miracle  was  a  sufficient  warrant  for  them  to 
believe  that  he  could  produce  the  (bread)  aliment  their  souls  required  to  sus- 
tain in  them  (undying)  immortal  life.  It  is  on  the  ground  of  this  figurative,  or 
emblematical  representation  of  himself  as  bread,  that  he  spoke  of  the  hearty 


CHRIST   WALKS   ON   THE    SEA.  141 

later  occasion,  Matt.  xvi.  8 — 11,  as  we  shall  notice  particularly 
hereafter. 

Matt.  xiv.  22 — 33.     Jesus  ivalks  on  the  sea. 

The  miracle  recorded  in  these  verses  was  another  exercise  of 
our  Lord's  Adamic  power.  It  differs,  in  its  order  or  class,  in  one 
respect,  from  that  last  mentioned,  inasmuch  as  it  was  exhibited 
only  to  his  disciples,  and  of  course  belongs  to  the  category  of 
private  instruction.  See  notes  on  Matt.  iv.  17 ;  viii.  23 — 27. 
That  there  was  a  design  in  concealing  it  from  the  public  may 
be  inferred  from  John  vi.  25,  where  we  find  that  the  people,  not 
being  able  to  account  for  his  being  so  soon  on  the  other  side  of 
the  sea,  desired  him  to  tell  them  how  he  came  there,  which  he 
tacitly  declined.  John  vi.  25,  26.  Luke  omits  this  miracle 
entirely,  but  Mark,  vi.  46 — 52,  and  John,  vi.  16 — 21,  record  it, 
with  some  variation  of  circumstances  and  language,  which  it 
is  proper  to  notice. 

According  to  Matthew  and  Mark,  the  boat  was  in  the  midst 
of  the  sea,  but  according  to  John  it  was  twenty-jive  or  thirty 
furlongs^  or  between  three  and  four  miles  from  the  land,  when 
Jesus  overtook  them.  Neither  of  the  Evangelists,  however, 
expressly  affirms  that  he  passed  over  all  that  distance  by  walk- 
ing on  the  surface  of  the  water.  Nor  do  we  suppose  it  necessary 
to  assume  that  he  did  so.  His  power  as  Son  of  Man,  which  he 
more  strikingly  exhibited  after  his  resurrection,  enabled  him  to 
approach  them  in  whatever  way,  and  with  whatever  rapidity  he 
chose;  but  when  the  disciples  first  saw  him  apjyroaching  their 
boat,  he  was  walking  on  the  sea.  Both  Mark  and  John  omit 
to  mention  Peter's  adventurous  request  and  his  rescue.  Matt, 
xiv.  28 — 31 ;  and  Matthew  and  Mark  take  no  notice  of  another 
miracle,  which  John  records  in  a  single  line,  viz.  the  rapid,  if 
not  instantaneous,  transit  of  the  boat  to  the  land  whither  they 

reception  of  him  by  faith,  as  an  eating  of  his  flesh  and  drinking  his  blood. 
Verses  53 — 56.  In  these  expressions  he  maintains  the  figure  in  part,  and 
drops  it  in  part.  Bread  is  eaten,  that  it  may  give  nourishment.  Accordingly, 
he  maintains  this  part  of  the  figure,  that  of  eating,  but  drops  the  other,  when 
he  speaks  of  eating  his  flesh.  The  sense  is  the  same  as  if  he  had  said,  "  He 
that  eateth  this  bread  of  life,"  meaning  himself,  "hath  eternal  life."  This 
partial  retaining  and  change  of  the  figure  offended  his  hearers,  verse  52,  and 
it  was  no  doubt  designedly  made,  to  test  the  character  of  some  of  his  professed 
followers,  verses  60 — 65,  though  he  told  them,  very  distinctly,  that  his  lan- 
guage was  to  be  understood  in  a  figurative  or  emblematical  sense,  verse  63,  as 
indeed  the  whole  structure  of  it,  and  the  miracle  which  gave  occasion  to  it, 
showed.  If  we  invert  the  proposition  in  the  5Gth  verse,  we  get  the  best 
commentary  that  can  be  made  upon  it.  "  He  that  dwelleth  in  me,"  that  is, 
heartily  receives  me,  "and  I  in  him,"  by  being  so  received,  "he"  it  is,  that 
"  eatetli  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood." 

The  Romish  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  rests  mainly  upon  a  misinterpre- 
tation of  this  discourse,  founded  upon  this  first  miracle  of  our  Lord  after  the 
death  of  John. 


142  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

went,  upon  their  receiving  Jesus  into  it.  John  vi.  21.  This 
miracle,  if  we  duly  consider  it,  is  strikingly  illustrative  of  the 
Saviour's  power  over  nature.  Mark  adds  a  reflection,  vi.  52, 
upon  the  whole  matter,  which  enables  us  to  assign  these  mira- 
cles to  the  same  and  their  proper  category :  "  They  (the  disci- 
ples) considered  not  the  miracle  of  tJie  loaves,"  which  they  had 
just  before  witnessed. 

This  miracle  of  the  loaves  is  referred  to,  as  we  conceive, 
because  it  was  of  the  same  order  or  class.  They  had  witnessed 
many,  if  not  all,  our  Lord's  public  miracles — the  healing  of  the 
sick,  the  cleansing  of  lepers,  the  raising  of  the  dead,  the  restora- 
tion of  sight  to  the  blind,  of  hearing  to  the  deaf,  of  strength  and 
soundness  to  the  lame  and  palsied — his  power  over  demons, 
which  they  themselves  also  had  exercised  in  his  name;  yet 
these  the  Evangelist  does  not  refer  to,  but  only  to  the  miracle 
of  the  loaves.  It  was  easy,  and  would  have  been  natural  for 
him,  to  say  they  considered  not  his  many  miracles,  John  xii.  37, 
h-ad  there  not  been  a  peculiar  propriety  in  referring  especially 
to  the  miracle  of  the  loaves.  The  miracles  of  healing  belonged 
to  the  Messianic  office  of  our  Lord;  but  the  miracle  of  the 
loaves,  like  his  other  miracles  of  power  over  physical  nature, 
was  an  exercise  of  his  powers  and  prerogatives  as  Son  of  Man, 
and  not  included  in  his  Messianic  office. 

Upon  this  miracle,  then,  we  may  reason  as  we  did  upon  that 
last  noticed.  The  inherent  power  of  his  nature  as  Son  of  Man, 
by  which  he  performed  it,  would  have  enabled  him  to  walk  upon 
the  winds,  or  the  clouds,  with  equal  ease,  had  he  chosen  to  do 
60,  Ps.  civ.  3;  Prov.  xxx.  4;  viii.  28,  30;  for  nothing  less  than 
an  absolute  control  over  physical  nature  is  sufficient  for  either. 
This  power,  as  before  suggested,  he  frequently  and  most  won- 
derfully manifested  to  his  disciples  after  his  resurrection,  but 
only  in  stinted  measures  before.  As  this  view  of  the  matter 
may  strike  the  reader  as  uncommon,  if  not  quite  new  and 
questionable,  we  desire  to  add  a  few  considerations  in  support 
of  it. 

Our  Lord's  intercourse  with  his  disciples  after  his  resur- 
rection is  justly  regarded  as  profoundly  mysterious;  and  yet 
his  approach  to  them  on  this  occasion  was  not  less  so.  We  per- 
ceive this  the  moment  we  attempt  to  explain  it.  His  apparently 
casual  approach  to  the  disciples  going  to  Emmaus,  his  sudden 
disappearance  from  them,  and  his  reappearance  to  them  and 
their  companions  the  same  evening,  at  Jerusalem,  Luke  xxiv. 
13 — 36,  were  not  the  exercise  of  neivly  acquired  powers,  but  a 
different  or  larger  exercise  of  the  powers  ivhich  he  possessed 
from  the  beginning  as  Son  of  man.  See  notes  on  Matt.  viii.  24. 
The  difference  in  the  manner  of  his  intercourse  with  them  before 


Christ's  intercourse  with  his  disciples.         143 

and  after  his  resurrection  is  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  libera- 
tion or  enlargement  of  the  poAvers  he  always  inherently  pos- 
sessed, from  the  confinement  or  restraint  put  upon  them  by  the 
Divine  plan  which  he  came  into  the  world  to  execute.  See  notes 
on  Acts  ii.  That  plan  required  him  in  his  intercourse  with  the 
people,  and  for  the  most  part  with  his  disciples  also,  to  conform 
himself  to  the  ways  of  our  frail  and  feeble  humanity ;  and  very 
seldom  did  he  depart  from  it  in  public ;  see  Luke  iv.  80,  John  viii. 
59,  and  notes  on  Matt.  ii.  12,  13,  or  even  privately  in  his  inter- 
course with  his  disciples  ;  and  then  only  for  their  special  instruc- 
tion. Matt.  viii.  23,  27 ;  xiv.  2.5,  32  ;  Mark  vi.  48  ;  John  vi.  19 ; 
or  for  the  instruction  of  a  part  of  them.  Matt.  xvii.  1,  2 ;  Mark 
ix.  2;  Luke  ix.  29.  During  the  whole  of  his  public  ministry  he 
restrained  the  mighty  powers  within  him ;  contracting  them,  so 
to  speak,  to  the  puny  measures  of  our  fallen  humanity ;  be- 
cause, as  Son  of  Man,  he  could  do  nothing  of  himself  (that  is, 
he  could  not  give  scope  and  action  to  his  powers)  beyond  the 
works  the  Father  had  given  him  to  do  (or  exhibit).  John  v.  19, 
30,  36.  The  class  of  miracles  we  are  considering  were  per- 
mitted, as  transient  or  momentary  exhibitions  of  his  majestic 
nature,  see  2  Pet.  i.  16,  17,  in  the  manner,  and  to  the  extent, 
in  which  they  were  performed,  for  special  purposes;  and  are 
to  be  reckoned  as  exceptions  to  the  habitual  restraint  or  con- 
straint to  which  he  had  voluntarily  submitted.  At  his  resurrec- 
tion he  cast  off  this  restraint  in  a  great  measure,  as  the  manner 
of  his  appearing  to  his  disciples  and  departing  from  them 
proves,  and  at  his  glorification  he  was  wholly  and  completely 
enlarged  from  it.      See  notes  on  Luke  xxiv.  38,  39,  and  Acts  ii. 

According  to  this  view,  what  we  commonly  consider  the 
natural  side  of  our  Lord's  character,  was  really  the  miraculous 
side;  and  what  we  consider  the  miraculous  side,  was  but  the 
natural  outward  actings  of  his  glorious  humanity,  as  Son  of 
Man,  and  Lord  of  the  world.  Nor  must  we  forget  that  his 
Divine  nature  as  Son  of  God  was  in  hypostatic  union  with  his 
Adamic  and  fleshly  nature,  and  this  consideration  enforces  the 
view  we  have  taken,  because  in  his  Divine  nature  the  restraint 
of  his  powers  only,  and  not  the  exertion  of  them  in  mighty 
works,  can  be  accounted  miraculous. 

Matt.  xiv.  28.  "And  Peter  answered  him  and  said,  If  it  be 
thou,  bid  me  come  to  thee  upon  the  waters." 

If  Peter  had  any  doubt  whether  it  was  Jesus  whom  he  then 
saw,  and  thus  addressed,  he  proposed  a  most  extraordinary 
expedient  to  remove  it.  But  the  conduct  of  Peter  shows  that 
he  had  no  doubt  whatever  on  that  matter.  He  knew  it  was 
Jesus,  and  this  new  exhibition  of  his  Lord's  miraculous  powers 
prompted  his  request.     The  words  of  the  original  admit,  per- 


144  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

haps,  of  a  different  turn  from  that  given  them  in  our  trans- 
lation:  "Is  it  thou? — bid  me  come  to  thee  upon  the  ■waters." 
We  may  regard  the  words  sc  au  ec,  "is  it  thou,"  as  words  of 
recognition  and  surprise,  not  as  implying  doubt.  He  was  con- 
fident it  was  Jesus,  and  that  he  could  enable  him  to  do, what 
he  was  doing,  and  in  this  confidence  he  made  the  request.* 

Matt.  xiv.  29.  "And  he  said,  Come.  And  when  Peter 
was  come  down  out  of  the  ship,  he  walked  on  the  water  to  go 
to  Jesus. 

So  far  as  we  know,  this  is  the  only  instance  in  which  any  of 
the  disciples  attempted  a  miracle  of  this  nature ;  and  this  we 
suppose  was  the  Evangelist's  reason  for  recording  it.  Peter  was 
naturally  courageous  and  impulsive,  and  consequently  some- 
times inconsiderate,  and  this  passage  among  others,  is  cited  to 
show  that  such  was  his  character.  But  that,  we  suppose,  is  not 
the  instruction  the  record  was  intended  to  convey.  The  chief 
lesson  is  the  power  of  perfect  faith — that  is,  faith  without  fear 
or  doubt — to  perform  acts  or  works  like  these,  as  the  following 
verses  prove : 

Matt.  xiv.  30,  31.  "  But  when  he  saw  the  wind  was  boiste- 
rous, he  was  afraid,  and  beginning  to  sink  he  cried  out.  Lord, 
save  me !  And  immediately  Jesus  stretched  forth  his  hand  and 
caught  him,  and  said  unto  him,  0  thou  of  little  faith,  wherefore 
didst  thou  doubt?  " 

Peter  failed  in  his  attempt,  not  because  he  was  impulsive, 
or  inconsiderate,  but  for  want  of  faith;  he  was  afraid.  He 
doubted  or  wavered  in  his  mind,  whether  he  could  do  what  he 
was  attempting,  by  the  command  and  approbation  of  Jesus ; 
and  that  marred  his  faith.  What  the  Saviour  said  to  Peter 
after  his  rescue,  was  an  assurance  to  him  that  perfect  faith  or 
trust,  without  fear  of  consequences  or  doubt  of  success,  would 
have  enabled  him  to  do  what  he  had  attempted,  Avhich  amounts 
to  this,  that  perfect  faith  in  Jesus  is  a  power  superior  hj  Divine 
constitution  to  physical  laws:  and  this  agrees  with  what  the 
Lord  taught  his  disciples  most  explicitly  on  other  occasions. 
He  told  them  that  if  they  had  such  faith,  even  in  its  seed  (that 
is  undeveloped)  form  (as  it  must  necessarily  be  in  this  life),t 

*  The  use  of  the  imperative,  xsaswo-m'  fxi,  shows,  according  to  the  laws  of  lan- 
guage, as  well  as  the  instincts  of  human  nature,  that  Peter  viewed  the  condi- 
tion [ii  <rv  it)  as  actual ;  that  is,  as  expressing  the  real  fact — not  merely  as 
probable.  If  he  had  supposed  it  as  only  probable,  that  the  person  he  addressed 
was  Jesus,  or  if  he  had  had  no  definite  notion  about  it,  the  use  of  the  impera- 
tive would  have  Shown  greater  inconsiderateness  than  we  can  impute  even  to 
Peter,  namely,  his  readiness  to  hazard  his  life  upon  a  doubt:  nor  could  he 
have  made  the  request  in  any  form,  or  under  any  condition,  without  risking 
life  on  the  truthfulness  and  power  of  an  unknown  or  doubtful  person  or  spirit. 

f  Or,  perhaps  the  allusion  may  be  to  purity  or  homogeneity,  freedom  from 
mixture  or  alloy  with  anything  of  another  nature,  as  a  mustard  seed  is. 


THE   apostles'   POWER   TO   PERFORM   MIRACLES.        145 

nothing  would  be  impossible  to  them,  Matt.  xvii.  20  ;  Luke  xvii. 
6,  and  the  examples  he  gave  them  of  the  power  of  faith,  prove 
its  superiority  to  physical  laws.  The  Lord's  remark  on  this 
occasion  shows  us,  that  we  are  to  understand  such  promises  or 
assurances  literally  ;  not  in  a  figurative  or  hyperbolical  sense, 
or  as  intended  merely  to  represent  strongly  and  impressively 
the  moral  power  of  faith.  Matt.  xvii.  20  ;  xxi.  21 ;  Mark  xi. 
23;  Luke  xvii.  6;  notes  on  Matt.  viii.  2,  3.  The  verse  under 
consideration,  then,  is  important  as  furnishing  a  rule  of  inter- 
pretation; and  for  that  purpose  chiefly,  we  suppose,  it  was 
recorded.  It  teaches  us  in  what  sense  we  are  to  understand 
the  Saviour's  language  in  like  cases. 

The  power  conferred  upon  the  apostles  when  they  were  sent 
forth  to  preach  the  kingdom.  Matt.  x.  1 — 8,  did  not  extend  to 
miracles  of  this  nature.  Nor  do  we  know  that  they  performed 
miracles  of  any  kind  after  the  death  of  John  the  Baptist,  until 
they  were  endowed  with  fresh  powers  by  the  descent  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  after  our  Lord's  ascension.  For  reasons  already 
suggested,  (Matt.  xiv.  8 — 12,  note,)  we  presume  they  did  not, 
at  least  in  virtue  of  their  commission  to  preach  the  kingdom. 
If  this  be  so,  it  was  on\f  by  the  power  of  faith  they  were  able, 
after  the  death  of  John  and  their  return  from  their  first  mis- 
sion, to  perform  a  miracle,  Matt.  xvii.  16 — 20,  even  of  the 
kinds  which  their  commission  embraced.  These  were  miracles 
of  the  first  and  third  classes  before  mentioned.  Notes,  Matt, 
iv.  23,  24 ;  x.  1.  Peter's  attempt  to  walk  upon  the  water,  and 
his  partial  success,  were  the  nearest  approximation  to  a  miracle 
of  a  different  order  or  nature,  made  by  any  of  the  apostles. 
But  the  faith  requisite  for  such  miracles  is  not  designed  for  the 
holiest  and  best  of  men  in  this  life.  Fear  and  doubt  are 
instinctively  and  inseparably  incident  to  our  fallen  or  mortal 
condition.  They  constitute,  in  part,  the  bondage,  Heb.  ii.  14, 
15,  from  which  we  are  to  be  delivered,  when  the  body  shall  be 
redeemed,  Rom.  viii.  23;  Luke  xxi.  28,  exalted  and  glorified. 
1  Cor.  ix.  27  ;  xiii.  2.  Then  perfect  faith  (or  call  it  assurance 
or  confidence)  will  take  the  place  of  doubt  and  fear.  The 
believer  will  no  longer  know  in  part,  but  perfection  having 
come,  all  the  frailties  of  his  fallen  nature  will  be  done  away. 
1  Cor.  xiii.  9 — 12.  For  it  is  one  of  the  inconceivably  great 
and  glorious  purposes  of  redemption  to  raise  up  and  construct 
out  of  the  fallen  race  of  Adam,  a  new  order  of  manhood  by  a 
genealogy  derived  from  the  Second  Adam — the  Adam  of  glory, 
the  Man  of  God's  right  hand,  Ps.  Ixxx.  17,  in  whom  the  attri- 
butes of  dominion  and  power  described  by  David,  Ps.  viii.  6, 
and  the  large  promises  of  the  Saviour  shall  be  fully  and  literally 
realized.  Rev.  iii.  21 ;  John  xvii.  23,  24. 
19 


146  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE; 

Matt.  xiv.  32.  "  And  when  they  were  come  into  the  ship 
the  wind  ceased."  John  adds,  vi.  21,  "and  immediately  the 
ship  was  at  the  land  whither  they  went." 

Two  other  miracles  of  power  over  nature,  and,  as  it  seems, 
silently  wrought.  It  is  not  said  that  he  rebuked  the  winds 
audibly,  as  on  a  former  occasion,  Matt.  viii.  26,  notes,  and  the 
rapid,  noiseless  transit  of  the  vessel  from  the  middle  of  the  sea 
to  the  place  of  their  destination,  after  the  wind  had  ceased, 
without  their  toiling  and  rowing,  was  itself  a  most  amazing 
effect  of  his  power  as  Son  of  Man. 

Matt.  xiv.  33.  "Then  they  which  were  in  the  ship  came 
and  worshipped  him ;  saying,  Of  a  truth  thou  art  the  Son  of 
God." 

Some  commentators  suppose  that  'these  words  (oi  oe  kv  no 
TiXouo)  "  they  which  were  in  the  ship"  include  mariners  besides 
the  disciples;  because  the  word  "disciples"  is  commonly  used, 
when  none  else  are  meant.  And  to  account  for  these  mariners 
joining  in  an  ascription  of  a  Divine  nature  to  the  Lord  Jesus, 
Dr.  Bloomfield  supposes  that  the  disciples  would  be  likely  to 
impart  to  the  mariners  the  information  that  they  had  heard 
him  claim  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  It  "is  much  more  probable, 
however,  that  none  but  the  chosen  disciples  were  in  the  vessel, 
because  none  but  the  disciples  are  spoken  of  in  verse  22,  where 
it  is  said  that  Jesus  constrained  his  disciples  to  get  into  the  ship 
and  go  before  him,  and  that  they  were  gone  away  alone.  By 
occupation  four  of  the  apostles,  at  least,  were  fishermen,  and 
competent  as  mariners  to  navigate  the  lake.  John,  vi.  19, 
represents  the  disciples  as  rowing ;  and  Mark,  vi.  48,  as  toiling 
in  rowing.  Besides  the  article  [to)  the,  verse  22,  indicates  that 
it  was  the  ship  or  boat  which  was  commonly  used  by  the  disci- 
ples, and  perhaps  kept  especially  for  their  use.  But  the  chief 
reason  is  derived  from  the  nature  of  the  miracle  itself.  It  was 
one  of  those  extraordinary  acts  of  power,  which  none  but  the 
disciples  were  permitted  to  witness.  See  notes  on  Matt.  viii. 
23 — 27.  The  miracle  was  a  part  of  the  private  instruction  or 
discipline  of  the  apostles,  designed  to  qualify  them  for  the 
offices  to  which  they  had  been  chosen.  As  to  the  reason  first 
above  suggested,  that  the  word  "disciples"  is  commonly  used, 
when  none  other  are  meant,  it  is  sufficient  to  say,  that  the  word 
"disciples"  would  have  included  Peter,  whereas  the  intention 
of  the  Evangelist  was  to  exclude  Peter  from  the  observation  he 
made.  Consider  the  circumstances :  the  Saviour  had  caught 
Peter  when  beginning  to  sink,  and,  had  brought  him  to  the 
vessel.  They  entered  it  together,  [xoj  ififtai^zcop  aorcou,)  verse 
32.  The  other  disciples,  who  remained  in  the  ship,  (of  us  iu  xco 
nXoco))  coming  forward  to  meet  the  Saviour  by  whose  side  Peter 


APOSTLES  ACKNOWLEDGE  CHRIST  AS  THE  SON  OF  GOD.     147 

was  standing,  {jzpoaey.uvr^aav  aurco,)  worshipped  him  and  said : 
"Truly  thou  art  the  Son  of  God."  His  saving  Peter  from 
sinking,  and  bringing  him  into  the  vessel  again,  in  the  manner 
they  had  witnessed,  walking  by  his  side  as  on  solid  ground,  was 
in  itself  another  miracle,  which  served  to  increase  their  amaze- 
ment. 

As  to  their  expression,  "  Of  a  truth  thou  art  the  Son  of 
God" — WXyjOco:;  deoo  uco^  ei — the  article,  though  it  appears  in 
our  translation,  is  not  in  the  original.  The  expression  is  dif- 
ferent in  this  respect  from  Peter's  in  Matt.  xvi.  16,  (6  yfoc  rou 
6sou  TO'j  ^couTO^)  "the  Son  of  the  living  God."  On  the  occa- 
sion of  Peter's  confession,  the  Saviour  blessed  him,  adding  that 
he  had  declared  a  truth  which  flesh  and  blood  had  not  revealed 
to  him,  but  the  Father.  Matt.  xvi.  17.  He  pronounced  no  such 
blessing  on  this  occasion,  nor  did  he  intimate  that  they  had 
confessed  him  to  be  the  Son  of  God  by  inspiration.  There 
must,  therefore,  be  a  difference  in  the  two  expressions,  or  in 
the  sense  in  which  they  were  uttered:  for  if  the  expressions  are 
equivalent,  and  if  they  were  uttered  in  the  same  sense,  we 
cannot  account  for  the  different  manner  in  which  they  were 
received  by  the  Saviour.  Notwithstanding,  therefore,  all  that 
Bishop  Middleton  or  any  one  else  has  proved  concerning  the  use 
or  omission  of  the  Greek  article  in  the  New  Testament,  we  cannot 
understand  the  expression  of  the  disciples  on  this  occasion  as 
a  confession  of  the  Deity  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  which  Peter's  con- 
fession certainly  was.  It  appears  to  be  much  of  the  same 
nature  as  the  centurion's,  who  watched  the  crucifixion.  Matt, 
xxvii.  54.  See  notes.  They  regarded  him  as  a  man  highly 
favoured  of  God,  endowed  with  most  extraordinary  powers,  as 
Satan  surmised  he  was,  Matt.  iv.  3,  6,  but  without  any  concep- 
tion of  his  Divine  nature  and  attributes  as  the  Son  of  God  and 
the  Creator  of  all  things.  This  view  of  the  passage  detracts 
nothing  from  the  proofs  of  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  Divine 
nature,  and  his  equality  in  that  nature  with  God  the  Father. 
For  this  great  truth  is  to  be  proved  rather  by  his  own  words 
and  works,  than  by  the  confessions  of  his  disciples,  especially 
those  made  before  they  were  inspired,  and  when  they  were 
imperfectly  instructed  in  the  mysteries  of  redemption.  See 
Matt.  xvi.  21—23, 

Matt.  xv.  12,  13.  "Then  came  his  disciples  and  said  to 
him,  Knowest  thou  that  the  Pharisees  were  offended,  after  they 
heard  this  saying?  But  he  answered  and  said,  Every  plant 
which  my  heavenly  Father  hath  not  planted  shall  be  rooted 

up." 

It  is  interesting  and  instructive  to  observe,  how  constantly 
the  disciples  approached  the  Saviour  to  give  him  information  of 


148  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

■what  they  ohserved,  as  if  his  knowledge  and  means  of  know- 
ledge were  limited  like  their  own.  This  fell  in  with  his  own 
habit  of  inquiring  of  them  concerning  many  things,  as  if  he 
needed  information.  John  vi.  5,  6;  Matt.  xvi.  13;  John  ii. 
24,  25.  Hence  we  learn  how  completely  his  superior  nature 
was  concealed  under  his  humanity.  None  of  the  apostles 
appear  to  have  realized  his  glory  as  Son  of  Man,  or  his  omnis- 
cience as  divine,  until  after  his  resurrection.  Then  Peter,  in 
answer  to  his  thrice  repeated  inquiry,  declared  the  great  truth : 
"Lord,  thou  knowest  all  things."  John  xxi.  17.  It  vras  a  part 
of  the  Divine  plan  that  it  should  be  so.  Perhaps  we  may  say  it 
was  one  of  the  constraints  to  which  the  Saviour  had  submitted, 
that  he  should  not  always  act  upon  what  he  knew,  but  upon 
what  had  been  communicated  to  him  in  the  way  of  ordinary 
intercourse  between  men.  But  what  Ave  wish  particularly  to 
note  is,  the  Divine  purpose  as  to  the  ultimate  condition  of  this 
world.  The  remark,  it  is  true,  has  a  special  application  to  the 
Pharisees,  who  were  offended  at  his  doctrine.  Yet  it  is  a  great 
truth  of  universal  application.  The  figure  the  Saviour  employs, 
may  remind  the  reader  of  the  parable  of  the  tares.  The  enemy 
is  planting  his  seed  and  nurturing  his  plants ;  but  they  shall, 
when  the  time  of  the  harvest  comes,  all  be  rooted  up,  and 
nothing  which  is  not  of  heavenly  origin  shall  be  suffered  to 
remain.  This  instruction,  which  was  privately  given  to  the 
disciples,  coincides  with  the  Lord's  prayer — "Thy  kingdom 
come,  thy  will  be  done,  on  earth  as  it  is  in  heaven." 

Matt.  xv.  21.  "  Then  Jesus  went  thence  and  departed  into 
[say  towards]  the  coasts  [borders]  of  Tyre  and  Sidon." 

John  the  Baptist  and  our  Lord  were  both  ministers  of  the 
circumcision.  See  verse  24,  and  Rom.  xv.  8.  It  does  not  ap- 
pear that  either  ever  crossed  the  borders  of  the  land  of  Israel. 
And  when  our  Lord  passed  through  Samaria  in  going  from 
Jerusalem  to  Galilee,  John  iv.  3,  4,  there  was  a  necessity  for 
it,  as  the  Evangelist  is  careful  to  inform  us ;  because  the  Sa- 
maritans were  not  among  those  to  whom  he  was  sent.  Matt.  x. 
5 ;  XV.  24.  For  these  reasons  the  word  (sic)  translated  into, 
in  this  verse,  should  be  rendered  tmvards,  or  into  the  neighbour- 
hood of  the  territories  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  for  he  did  not 
actually  go  out  of  the  land  of  Israel.  This  was  another  con- 
straint which  he  put  upon  himself  as  a  man,  to  confine  himself 
strictly  to  the  objects  of  his  mission.  John  the  Baptist's  mis- 
sion was  so  closely  bound  up  with  his,  that  we  do  not  suppose 
the  Holy  Spiritwith  which  he  was  filled  would  have  allowed 
him  to  lead  any  other  manner  of  life  than  he  did. 

Matt.  xv.  22 — 28.  The  miracle  recorded  in  these  verses, 
was  performed  after  the  death  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  of 


CHRIST   AGAIN    MULTIPLIES   BREAD.  149 

course  after  the  trial  of  Israel  as  a  nation  virtually  was  ended. 
See  notes  on  Matt.  xiv.  3 — 12.  Yet  it  is  plain  the  objects  of 
our  Lord's  mission  to  Israel  were  not  fully  accomplished.  They 
were  still  the  sheep  of  which  he  was  the  shepherd,  yet  lost 
sheep ;  because  they  had  rejected  the  Lord's  forerunner,  and 
were  soon  to  reject  and  crucify  him.  Yet  they  were  still  the 
children  of  the  kingdom,  and  the  blessings  the  Saviour  had  to 
dispense  were  their  bread.  Rom.  xv.  27.  The  time  had  not 
come  when  Gentiles  were  to  be  admitted  as  sharers  therein; 
but  this  obstacle  was  overcome  by  the  faith  and  importunity  of 
this  Gentile  mother.  To  illustrate  the  power  of  faith  by  this 
further  example,  the  Evangelist  records  this  miracle.  In  the 
case  of  the  centurion.  Matt.  viii.  5 — 10,  it  does  not  appear  to 
what  nation  the  servant  belonged.  In  this  case  the  subject  of 
the  miracle  was  a  Gentile.  According  to  Mark,  vii.  24 — 39, 
the  interview  took  place  in  a  house  into  which  the  Saviour  had 
entered  with  a  desire  to  be  concealed,  yet  with  some  of  his 
disciples,  as  it  appears  by  Matthew.  It  may  be  regarded, 
therefore,  as  a  private  instruction  to  them,  and  disconnected 
with  the  public  purposes  of  his  ministry. 

Matt.  xv.  80.  "And  great  multitudes  came  to  him,  having 
with  them  those  that  were  lame,  blind,  dumb,  maimed,  and 
many  others,  and  cast  them  down  at  Jesus'  feet,  and  he  healed 
them." 

These  miracles  were  performed  near  the  sea  of  Galilee, 
verse  29.  We  infer  that  the  number  and  variety  of  them  were 
unusually  great.  The  impression  they  made  on  the  minds  of 
the  people  was  deep,  verse  31,  and  to  make  it  still  deeper,  the 
Saviour,  before  he  dismissed  them,  again  miraculously  fed  them. 
According  to  the  views  suggested  in  the  note  on  Matt.  xiv.  10, 
we  do  not  suppose  these  miracles  were  performed  to  prove  the 
actual  presence  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  or  with  a  view  to  his 
being  received  bi/  the  nation  in  their  collective  capacity ;  but 
rather  to  commend  himself  to  the  people  individually  as  the 
Son  of  Man,  and  Saviour  of  all  who  would  receive  him.  The 
Evangelist  John,  i.  11,  12,  refers  to  this  two-fold  aspect,  or 
direction  of  our  Lord's  public  ministry — the  one  ending,  and 
the  other  beginning  at  the  death  of  John.  We  have  seen  how 
deeply  the  popular  mind  was  impressed  by  the  first  miracle  of 
the  loaves.  The  Saviour  now  performed  another  of  the  same 
kind,  after  healing  all  the  sick  brought  to  him  in  order  to  pre- 
pare their  minds  fully  for  the  course  of  instruction*    upon 

*  Our  Lord's  discourse  in  John  vi.  26 — 58,  has  already  been  referred  to. 
See  foot  note  to  Matt.  xiv.  10.  We  now  add,  for  the  purpose  of  pointing  ont 
more  fully  the  change  in  our  Lord's  public  instruction  after  the  deatli  of  John 
the  Baptist,  a  few  references  to  his  discourses  in  the  seventh,  eighth,  tenth, 


150  '  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

which  he  had  just  entered,  with  a  view  to  the  gathering  out  of 
the  nation,  the  beginnings  or  groundwork  of  an  elect  people, 
who  would  receive  him  notwithstanding  the  nation,  as  such, 
had  virtually  rejected  him,  by  rejecting  his  forerunner.  From 
the  death  of  John,  therefore,  the  public  ministry  of  our  Lord 
in  this  respect,  was  like  that  which  he  afterwards  appointed  for 
his  apostles.     See  Rom.  ix.  5,  14;  1  Cor.  ix.  22. 

Matt.  xvr.  4.  "  A  wicked  and  adulterous  generation  seeketh 
after  a  sign,  and  there  shall  be  no  sign  given  unto  it  but  the 
sign  of  the  prophet  Jonas:  and  he  left  them  and  departed." 

This  verse  was  remarked  upon  in  connection  with  Matt, 
xii.  38.  But  that  declaration  was  made  before  the  death  of 
John  the  Baptist,  and  contains  one  of  the  few  allusions  which 
the  Saviour  publicly  made  to  his  death,  during  John's  lifetime. 
See  John  ii.  19.  This  declaration  was  made  after  the  death  of 
John,  and  this  was  a  further  reason  for  refusing  the  sign  the 
Pharisees  and  Sadducees  demanded.  Our  Lord's  ministry, 
from  being  national  in  its  appeal  or  object,  had  now  become 
lyersonal  among  the  people ;  and  if  they  desired,  or  pretended 
to  desire,  the  sign,  with  a  view  to  his  reception  by  the  nation 
as  3Iessiah,  the  import  of  the  answer  was,  it  was  too  late  for 
that  purpose.  Their  trial  as  a  nation  was  virtually  over.  All 
the  appointed  signs  had  been  given  but  one,  and  that  one  was 

and  twelfth  chapters  of  John.  In  the  seventh  chapter  we  find  an  obscure  allu- 
sion to  his  ascension,  verses  33,  34,  and  to  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  verse  39, 
as  well  as  individual  appeals  to  his  hearers,  verses  37,  38.  In  the  eighth 
chapter  we  find  an  allusion  to  his  crucifixion,  verse  28— a  warning  of  the  con- 
sequences of  their  unbelief,  verses  21 — 24 — invitations  to  follow  him  as  the 
light  of  the  world,  verse  12 — promises  to  those  who  believed,  verses  31,  32,  51 — 
a  strong  denunciation  of  their  sinful  character,  verses  41 — 44 — an  assertion  of 
his  pre-existence  and  oneness  with  the  Father,  verses  56,  58.  In  the  ninth 
chapter  we  have  an  account  of  one  convert,  verses  35 — 38,  and  his  own  decla- 
ration as  to  the  effect  of  his  mission,  verse  39,  founded  upon  the  foreseen 
rejection  of  himself  by  the  nation.  The  appeal  of  his  discourse  in  the  tenth 
chapter  is  personal  and  individual.  He  portrays  his  character  and  office  under 
the  emblem  of  the  good  shepherd,  and  assuming  his  rejection  as  actual,  jilaiuly 
declares  his  purpose  to  lay  doivn  his  life  for  his  sheep,  verses  11,  15,  17,  18. 
He  alludes  also  to  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  verse  16,  to  the  purpose  of 
forming  an  elect  people  out  of  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  verses  27,  28,  29,  and 
plainly  declares  his  Divine  nature,  verse  30.  We  observe  the  same  individual 
appeal  in  the  twelfth  chapter,  verses  25,  26,  35,  36,  and  a  plain  allusion  to  his 
death,  verses  32,  33.  These  discourses  were  all  delivered  after  the  death  of 
John.  How  different  they  are  from  those  pronounced  before,  may  be  seen  by 
comparison  of  them  with  the  sermon  on  the  mount.  Matt,  v.,  vi.,  vii.,  and  his 
public  parables.  Matt.  xiii.  1 — 9,  24 — 33;  and  see  also  John  v.  17 — 47.  The 
Gospel  of  John,  we  suppose,  was  designed  in  part,  to  exhibit  more  fully  than 
the  other  Evangelists  had  done,  the  public  discourses  of  our  Lord  after  the 
death  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  his  private  instruction  of  his  disciples.  In  these 
two  particulars,  it  is  very  rich  and  full.  The  miracles  which  he  wrought 
during  this  period  were  proof  of  his  Divine  authority  to  command  the  belief 
of  the  people,  and  their  hearty  reception  of  him  as  the  only  and  all-sufficient 
Saviour  of  men.     See  the  note  on  Matt.  xiii. 


THE    FALSE    DOCTRINES    OF   THE    PHAIIISEES.  151 

typically  set  forth  by  the  prophet  Jonas.  We  observe  too,  that 
on  the  first  occasion,  our  Lord's  answer  was  little  more  than  a 
denial  of  their  request.  Now,  however,  he  explains  the  ground 
of  his  refusal  by  referring  to  their  own  principles  of  action. 
This  was  in  efi'ect  converting  the  question  into  one  of  personal 
and  individual  concern,  and  accords  well  with  the  altered 
purposes  of  his  ministry.  It  was  a  kind  of  argumentum  ad 
hominem. 

His  miracles,  which  they  had  seen  from  the  beginning  of 
John's  imprisonment,  were  unequivocal  signs  of  the  times,  and 
conclusive  evidence  of  his  character.  John's  death  was  to  the 
nation  another  sign  of  the  most  momentous  import.  These 
signs,  he  told  them,  they  ought  to  consider  with  as  much 
candour  and  care,  as  they  employed  in  the  ordinary  concerns  of 
life,  as  the  stake  they  individually  had  in  them  was  of  infinite 
moment.  As  if  he  had  said,  "I  go  my  way,"  and  if  you  con- 
sider not  these  signs,  and  decide  and  act  upon  them  with 
the  candour  and  earnestness  you  observe  in  your  temporal 
afiairs,  "and  believe  not  that  I  am  he"  that  should  come, 
"ye  shall  die  in  your  sins."  John  viii.  21,  24. 

Matt.  xvi.  6,  7.  "  Then  said  Jesus  to  them,  Take  heed  and 
beware  of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees  and  of  the  Sadducees. 
And  they  reasoned  among  themselves,  saying.  It  is  because  we 
have  taken  no  bread." 

This  is  one  of  several  passages  which  exhibit,  in  a  striking 
manner,  the  dulness  of  the  apostles,  or  their  want  of  sagacity 
to  apprehend  the  Saviour's  meaning,  even  when  his  allusions 
were  very  plain.  See  chap.  xv.  16;  John  xiii.  29,  36;  xiv.  5. 
They  seem  to  have  been  quite  as  dull  of  apprehension  as  the 
common  people,  who  did  not  enjoy  his  private  instruction. 
John  vii.  35;  xiii.  36.  We  are  sometimes  ready  to  inquire, 
why  the  Saviour,  who  had  such  control  over  their  minds,  did 
not  infuse  into  them  greater  powers  of  comprehension ;  but  the 
answer  is,  this  belonged  to  the  ofiice  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
John  xvi.  13. 

The  allusion  in  these  verses  to  the  corrupt  doctrines  of  the 
Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  seems  to  us  plain  enough,  yet  they 
thought  he  referred  to  their  having  forgotten  to  take  bread 
with  them,  and  they  understood  his  words  as  a  caution  against 
buying  of  those  who  had  no  good  will  to  them,  and  were  wicked 
enough  to  poison  their  food.  A  moment's  reflection  upon  what 
they  had  just  before  seen,  should  have  convinced  them  that  the 
matter  of  a  few  loaves  of  bread  was  not  of  the  slightest 
consequence  to  him,  and  that  the  conjecture  they  made  was  of 
all  imaginable  the  most  improbable;  but  it  gave  the  Saviour 
the  occasion  to  show  them  the  import  of  his  miracles  of  the 


152  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

loaves,  and  what  the  diflFerenee  between  them  was  designed  to 
prove. 

Their  strange  conceit,  is  recorded  for  the  sake  of  the  rea- 
soning by  which  the  Lord  removed  it.  His  questions  show 
wherein  the  force  of  these  miracles  lay.  In  the  first  of  them, 
he  fed  five  thousand  men  with  five  loaves,  and  the  fragments 
remaining  filled  tivelve  {xoiptvooz)  baskets.  In  the  second,  he 
fed  /oiw  thousand  with  seven  loaves,  and  the  fragments  re- 
maining filled  only  seven  {aTiopcda^)  smaller  baskets;  that  is, 
the  smaller  number  of  loaves  was  sufficient  to  satisfy  the  larger 
number  of  persons,  and  leave  a  greater  surplus  remaining — 
thus  proving  that  his  power  was  not  graduated,  or  limited  by, 
or  in  any  way  dependent  on  the  supply.  This,  however,  would 
not  appear  from  the  miracles,  if  the  [aTiufudaq)  baskets  left  of 
the  seven  loaves  were  larger  (proportionally)  than  the  (xo<fcvoui;) 
baskets  of  fragments  left  of  the  five  loaves;  for  then  the  surplus 
left  of  the  seven  loaves  would  be  greater  in  proportion  as  the 
number  of  the  loaves  and  the  number  fed  was  less.  The  readers 
of  the  English  translation  naturally  understand  that  the 
baskets,  in  both  cases,  were  of  the  same  description.  The 
original  shows  they  were  different.  What  the  exact  difference 
is  between  the  original  words  may  be  hard  to  determine,  but 
the  point  of  our  Lord's  question  requires  us  to  assume  that  the 
[aTzupcoa^)*  baskets  remaining  of  the  seven  loaves  were  of  less 
size  than  the  {xo<fcuou^)  others.  Thus  understood,  by  the  first 
miracle,  the  smaller  number  of  loaves  supplied  the  larger 
number  of  persons,  leaving  of  the  fragments  a  larger  number  of 
larger  baskets;  and  by  the  second  miracle,  the  larger  number 
of  loaves  supplied  a  smaller  number  of  persons  (sufiiciently 
indeed,)  but  left  only  a  smaller  number  of  smaller  baskets  full 
of  fragments.  The  difference,  he  would  have  his  disciples 
understand,  depended  solely  upon  his  will — in  other  words, 
that  the  abundance,  if  we  may  so  express  it,  in  the  latter 
miracle,  did  not  increase  his  power  nor  the  deficiency  in  the 

*  la  Acts  ix.  25,  we  read  that  Paul  was  let  down  through  the  wall  of 
Damascus  {h  a-TrvptSi)  in  a  basket.  The  object  of  the  writer  is  to  show  the 
imminence  of  the  danger  to  which  the  apostle  was  exposed,  and  one  of  the 
circumstances  laid  hold  of  to  show  it  was,  the  insecure  means  to  which  his 
friends,  in  their  haste  or  extremity,  were  obliged  to  resort.  If  we  suppose 
the  basket  comparatively  so  small  and  frail  that  it  could  not  receive  and 
securely  sustain  the  apostle's  person  (which  according  to  tradition  was  not 
large,)  we  perceive  the  force  of  this  circumstance.  Had  it  been  a  {Ko<fm;) 
basket  large  enough  and  strong  enough  to  contain  a  man  of  ordinary  size  and 
weight,  the  danger  of  his  descent  to  th^  ground  would  have  been  much  less, 
perhaps  it  would  not  have  been  mentioned  at  all.  The  apostle,  referring  to 
this  danger,  2  Cor.  xi.  32,  and  the  means  of  his  escape,  uses  the  word  a-xpynvti, 
which  probably  signiiies  in  this  place  a  small  basket  made  of  twigs.  Vaipy's 
Stej^h.  Thes.  cccci.  vol.  i. 


CHRIST   AS   THE    SON    OF   MAN.  153 

former  instance  diminish  it;  but  the  effect  in  both  cases 
depended  simply  on  his  will,  and  not  upon  the  means  he  em- 
ployed. 

We  add  only  that  both  these  miracles  are  to  be  ascribed  to 
his  power  as  Son  of  Man,  and  they  prove  his  absolute  dominion 
over  nature.     See  Ps.  Ixvii.  1,  6. 

With  these  verses  the  Evangelist  commences  a  series  of 
most  important  instructions  privately  given  to  the  disciples, 
extending,  Avith  the  exception  of  five  verses,  (xvii.  14 — 18,) 
to  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  chapter.  It  is  a  rich  vein  of 
Divine  mysteries,  which  will  amply  reward  the  profoundest 
study. 

Matt.  xvi.  13,  14.  "When  Jesus  came  into  the  coasts  of 
Cesarea  Philippi,  he  asked  his  disciples,  saying:  Whom  [who] 
do  men  say  that  I  the  Son  of  Man,  am  ?  And  they  said.  Some 
say  that  thou  art  John  the  Baptist,  some  Elias,  and  others, 
Jeremias,  or  one  of  the  prophets." 

There  was  an  immeasurably  deeper  mystery  in  the  person  of 
our  Lord  than  any  connected  with  the  person  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist. The  mystery  of  John's  character  and  relations  arose 
chiefly  from  the  obscurely  revealed  purpose  of  two  advents  of 
the  Messiah — the  first  to  suffer,  the  second  to  reign;  and  the 
consequent  appointment  of  two  forerunners — the  first  under  the 
covenant  of  law ;  the  second  under  the  covenant  of  grace.  The 
mystery  of  our  Lord's  person  consisted,  if  we  may  so  express 
it,  in  the  trinity  of  relations  or  characters  which  he  sustained, 
each  of  which  involved  mysteries  too  deep  for  creatures  to  com- 
prehend. 1  Pet.  i.  12.  He  was  the  Word,  John  i.  14,  and  as 
such  the  Creator  and  Governor  of  all  things.  John  i.  3.  He 
was  the  Son  of  Man,  and  as  such,  the  absolute  Lord  of  the 
world.  He  was  the  seed  of  the  Davidic  covenant,  and  as  such, 
the  Messiah  of  Israel.  The  mystery  of  John's  character  was 
involved  in  the  last  of  these  relations,  that,  namely,  of  our 
Lord's  Messiahship;  whereas  the  chief  mystery  of  our  Lord's 
person  lay  in  the  union  of  his  Divine  and  human  nature,  and  of 
his  human  nature  to  the  seed  of  Abraham. 

The  question  our  Lord  proposed  to  his  disciples  respected  his 
humanity,  or  his  nature,  as  Son  of  Man.  Notice  the  particu- 
larity of  the  question:  It  is  not  "whom  [who]  do  men  say  that 
I  am?"  In  that  form  the  question  would  have  involved  the 
whole  complexity  of  his  being,  which  is  incomprehensible  by 
creatures.  The  question  turned  upon  his  manhood  or  humanity. 
"Whom  [who]  do  men  say  that  I,  the  Son  of  Man,  am?"  This 
was  his  intermediary  character,  connecting,  as  it  were,  his  God- 
head with  his  Messiahship,  as  God-Man-Messiah. 

David,  we  have  shown,  had  some  glimpses  of  his  majesty  and 
20 


154  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

glory  as  Son  of  Man ;  see  notes  on  Matt.  ix.  4 ;  and  was  over- 
whelmed by  the  greatness  of  the  promise,  that  so  great  and 
glorious  a  Being  should  become  incarnate  in  his  race.  Whether 
he  had  any  conception  of  the  mystery  which  lay  aback  of  this — 
the  union,  namely,  of  the  Divine  to  his  nature  as  Son  of  Man, 
cannot  be  inferred  either  from  the  Psalm  he  had  composed,  or 
from  his  address  to  God,  which  we  have  considered;  notes  on 
Matt.  ix.  4.  However  this  may  be,  it  is  plain  from  the  answer 
of  the  disciples,  that  the  people  had  no  proper  conception  of  his 
character  or  person  in  any  of  these  relations.  They  mistook  the 
order  of  his  manhood.  John  the  Baptist,  Elias,  Jeremias,  and 
all  the  prophets  were  of  the  fallen  race  of  the  first  Adam.  They 
were  mortal  men,  and  heirs  of  the  fortunes  of  their  fallen  pro- 
genitor. He  was  the  Second  Adam,  and  by  Divine  covenant 
the  head  of  a  holy,  undying  race,  and  Lord  of  the  world.  He 
could  not  die  except  by  his  own  voluntary  submission  to  powers 
which  were  under  his  control.  John  x.  17,  18. 

We  cannot  have  any  adequate  conception  of  an  essentially 
immortal  man,  and  much  less  of  our  Lord's  manhood  in  union 
(as  it  was  from  the  beginning  designed  to  be)  with  the  Divine 
Nature.  That  it  is  fraught  with  the  deepest  mysteries,  is 
proved  by  John  iii.  13,  vi.  62;  xvii.  5.  That  the  mysteries  of 
the  nature  of  angels  are  not  to  be  compared  with  the  mystery 
of  our  Lord's  manhood,  may  be  inferred  from  his  exaltation  in 
that  nature  immeasurably  above  them.  Heb.  i.  4,  6.  See  notes 
on  Matt,  xxviii.  9,  10.  That  he  existed  in  his  human  (though 
not  fleshly)  nature  before  the  world  was,  or  the  angels  were 
created,  has  been  maintained  by  many  learned  and  pious 
divines.  But  without  entering  into  this  question,  we  add  in  the 
note  below  a  few  passages,  which  will  sufficiently  open  it  for  the 
consideration  of  the  reader.* 

*  The  truth  of  the  matter  as  it  lies  in  Jesus,  is  thus:  This  mediatory  person, 
being  made  the  Glory-Man  of  God's  fellowship,  Zech.  xiii.  7,  in  his  counsels 
from  everlasting,  is  that  image  and  likeness  subsisting  in  covenant-union  at 
that  time,  in  the  Second  person  of  God ;  though  not  then  subsisting  by  incar- 
nate union,  and  actual  birth-union  of  the  flesh  of  Christ  in  the  Son  of  God. 
He  becomes  absolutely,  as  the  man,  the  first-pattern  of  God's  workmanship  in 

the  creation;  and  so  the  first  likeness  or  creature  of  God.  Col.  i.  15 

Now  according  to  this  likeness,  subsisting  in  and  abiding  with  God  in  the  Son, 
and  with  the  Father,  John  i.  1,  2,  God  the  Spirit  comes  down  with  a  creating 
power,  and  by  the  pattern  of  the  covenant-man,  forms  that  noble  creature, 
Man,  or  Adam,  whom  he  raised  into  being  in  the  Garden  of  Eden,  and  out  of 
whose  loins  he  had  ordered  that  the  natural  [or  fleshly]  substance  of  that  other 
man  [the  Second  Adam]  the  Lord  from  heaven,  and  of  his  bride  too.  the  Elect, 
should  be  taken  in  the  work  of  creation — the  creation  and  marriage  of  Adam 
and  Eve  being  intended  as  a  shadow  of  the  mystery;  as  is  clear  by  the  apostle 
Paul's  arguing  in  Eph.  v.  23 — 32. — The  Glory  of  Christ  Unveiled,  by  Joseph 
Hussey,  p.  175. 

"Christ  is  Nature's  fulness,  as  well  as  the  Gospel's.     He  lighteneth  every 


CHRIST   AS   THE    SON    OF   MAN.  155 

Matt.  XVI.  15.  "  He  saith  unto  them,  But  >vhom  [who]  say 
ye  that  I  am?"  Without  making  any  observation  on  these 
opinions  of  the  people,  our  Lord  immediately  propounds  the 
same    question   to   the   disciples,    somewhat   abbreviated,   yet 

man,  with  natural  understanding,  that  cometh  .into  the  world,  John  i.  9,  and 
that,  as  he  is  God's  image."  Col.  i.  15.  It  was  in  this  image  Adam  was 
created;  and  it  has  pleased  the  Father,  that  all  fulness  should  dwell  in  Christ. 

Col.  i.  19 There  is  nothing  of  God  communicable  to  us,  or 

to  any  creature  in  heaven  or  earth  [except  by  derivation  from,  or]  out  of 
Christ's  fulness,  either  of  Nature,  or  Grace,  or  Glory." — Glory  of  Christ,  by 
Joseph  Hussey,  p.  103,  104. 

[The]  image  then  spoken  of  in  Genesis,  i.  26,  is   the  substantial  image  of 

God,  Heb.  i.  3,  or  the  Glory  Man subsisting  in  the  second  person  of 

God  :  so  standing  in  him  before  Adam,  as  to  and  tvith  God,  who  is  incapable 
of  changeable  sight,  he  was  considered  and  reputed  the  same.  He  was  to 
stand  for  ever.     lb.  p.  102. 

What  can  we  make  of  these  texts  [of  the  Old  Testament]  which  call  him 
The  Man  [The  Adam]  (Ezek.  ix.  3,  11 ;  x.  2,  6,  7;  Dan.  xii.  6,  7;  Zech.  vi. 
11,  12  ;  xiii.  7)  if  we  shut  out  his  secret  being  with  God  before  the  open  ways 
and  means,  of  his  open  being  with  men  ?  Was  he  a  man  at  all  in  their  sense, 
who  deny  that  he  was  a  man  otherwise  than  intentionally  to  be  a  man,  till  he 
existed  by  incarnation  in  the  Virgin's  womb  ?  They  think  it  enough,  because 
'tis  orthodox  to  own  he  was  God,  without  beginning,  and  Man  in  and  from  the 
Virgin's  womb.     But  though  this  is  truth  and  orthodox,  it  is  not  all  the  truth. 

It  is  sound  to  hold  the  person  of  the  Mediator,  God-Man,  to  be 

one  person  and  two  distinct  natures,  but  it  is  not  sufficient,  if  we  do  not  begin 
the  human  nature  as  the  secret  glory-man  with  the  Father  in  the  Son  from 
everlasting.    Prov.  viii.  22 — 31 ;  John  xvii.  5. 

He  was  actually  man  to  God  before  his  incarnation  in  the  womb,  of  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Virgin.  He  was  a  man  trith  God  by  a  beginning  from  everlast- 
ing, as  well  as  he  was  actually  God  before  without  beginning  from  everlasting. 
He  was  a  man  secretly  in  the  covenant  before  he  was  incarnate  secretly  in  his 
mother's  womb.  This  was  the  condition  of  the  Mediator  to  and  with  God  in 
the  everlasting  covenant.  2  Sam.  xxiii.  5;  vii.  18,  19;  1  Chron.  xvii.  17.  The 
intermediate  successions  of  things,  and  all  the  changes  in  the  ways  and  means, 
were  future  or  to  be,  in  respect  of  the  Man  and  in  respect  of  the  church;  not 
in  respect  of  God :  For  it  was  done  in  God  and  to  God  and  uith  God,  before ; 
and  yet  the  Divine  Settlements  and  laws  of  Heaven  made  it  as  necessary,  that 
it  should  be  done  in  the  man  and  to  the  man  successively  through  time,  as  it  was 
certainly  done  in  God,  to  God,  and  with  God,  upon  the  man,  by  infallible  set- 
tlements, constitution,  and  make,  in  his  secret  covenant  among  the  persons  of 
the  Godhead,  before  all  time." — Hussey,  Glory  of  Christ  Unveiled,  p.  185. 

Calvin  says  in  his  readings  upon  Daniel:  "In  eo  nihil  est  absurdi  qu6d 
Christus  aliquam  speciem  humansB  naturse  exhiberet  antequam  manifestatus 
in  carne."     Calvin,  however,  does  not  maintain  this  view. 

Dr.  Henry  More  [Oper.  fol.  66)  says:  "  Quodque  Angelus  qui  ducebat 
Israelitas  in  terram  Canaan,  Christus  erat,  videtur  plan6  asseri  1  Cor.  x.  5. 
Neque  tentemus  Christum  sicut  quidam  eorum  tentarunt,  etc.  Christus  vero 
non  nudus  Deus  est,  sed  complexum  quid  ex  humana,  natura.  et  Divina.     Per- 

pende  Heb.  xi.  2G Atque  profectd  aniniam  Messiee  in  rerum  naturi. 

fuisse  antequam  nostram  carncm  sumpserat,  sensus  maxime  facilis  ac  naturalis 
illius  loci  1  John  iv.  2,  videtur  etinm  inferre.     n*v  Trnuf^dL  o  ojuoxoyu  Iikt^.uv  Xp/o-Tov 

iv  (TapKi  iXukuScrai   ix,    rou  Qau  Wtiv Sensus    enim   genuiuus    est, 

Quicnnque  spiritus  profitetur  Jesum  esse  Messiam  profectum  in  carneni  sive  in 
corpus  terrestre,  ex  Deo  est;  quod  supponit  eum  fuisse,  antequam  in  illud 
venerat,  vel  hue  6  ccelo  profectus  erat. 

"  Rursus;  cum  optima  fieri  possit,  ut  ille,  etiam  ante  generationem  hominum 
et  terrarum  orbis  inhabitationem  Messias  electus  esset  (ut  ita  loquar)  et  unitus 


156  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

importing  the  same;  as  if  he  had  said,  "But  whom  [who]  say 
ye  that  I,  the  Son  of  Man,  am?" 

Matt.  xvi.  16.  "And  Simon  Peter  answered  and  said: 
Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God." 

It  has  already  been  remarked,  that  there  is  much  more  in 
this  answer  than  in  the  exclamation  of  the  disciples,  when  the 
Lord  entered  their  boat  from  walking  on  the  sea.  Matt.  xiv.  33. 
See  notes.  The  answer  is  to  be  interpreted  by  the  terms  of  the 
question,  and  may  be  thus  expressed:  "Thou  the  Son  of  Man 
art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God."  In  his  Adamic 
nature  (or  as  the  Second  Adam,  that  is,  Second  in  the  order  of 

insuper  cum  Diviao  \oya>  coelestique  gloria  ac  pulchritudine  resplendens  inter 
angelos  in  coelo ;  haec  hypothesis  rationem  reddet  admodum  facilem  et  genui- 
nam  multorum  locorum  Novi  Testamenti  quae  aliter  valde  obscura  videntur : 
Quemadmodum  illud  Philip,  ii.  6,  7,  8.  Multorum  enim  mentes  excruciavit, 
qui  fieri  possit,  ut  ex  eo  quod  homo  fiat,  sui  ipsius  exinanitio  in  aeternum  et 
immutabilem  Deum  cadat.  Ad  quod  tamea  textus  digitum  videtur  intendere. 
Potest  autem  admodum  proprie  competere  animoe  ^lessioe,  qui  etiam  verd 
Deus  erat  per  unionem  physicam  cum  Deitate.  Similiter  Job.  xvii.  4,  5.  Glo- 
rijicavi  te  in  terra,  etc.  Nunc  igitur  glorijica  me  tu  Pater,  etc.,  hoc  est,  Reduo 
me.  Pater,  rursus  ad  teipsum  ut  ek  ^gloria,  iterum  fruar,  quam  apud  te  habui 
in  coelis  antequam  homines  nati  essent,  atque  hie  terrai-um  orbis  formatus. 

Postremo  Joh.  vi.  38.     Quia  descendi  e  ca'lo  ut  faciam, 

etc.  Et  Joh.  iii.  31.  Qui  e  coelo  venit  supra  omnes  est.  Et  adhuc  explicatius, 
Joh.  xvi.  28.  Ezivi  ex  Patre  et  veni  in  mundum,  et  iterum  relinquo  mundum  et 
proficiscor  ad  Patrem.  Sed  omnium  explicatissim6,  Joh.  iii.  13.  Nullus  enim 
ascendit  in  caelum  nisi  qui  descendit  e  coelo  nempe  filius  hominis  qui  est  in  coelo.  .  . 
.  .  .  Quibus  omnibus  addere  poteris.  Joh.  yi.  62.  Quod  si  igitur  spectaveritis 
filium  hominis  ascendentem  eo  ubi  erat  prius.     Vide  Prov.  xxx.  4. 

Dr.  Watts  held  to  the  belief  that  the  human  soul  of  Christ  existed  with  the 
Father  from  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  on  which  ground  he  main- 
tained the  real  descent  of  Christ  from  heaven  to  earth.  He  says  "the  gene- 
rality of  our  Christian  writers  believe  that  it  was  only  the  Divine  nature  or 
Godhead  of  Christ  which  had  an  existence  before  he  was  conceived  of  the  Virgin 

Mary  and  became  incarnate." But  "if  we  suppose  the  human  soul  of 

Christ  to  have  a  pre-existent  state  of  joy  and  glory  with  the  Father  before  the 
world  was  created,  these  expressions"  (which  speak  of  the  abasement  of  Christ 

and  the  humiliating  change  he  passed  through)  "  are  great  and  noble 

and  have  a  happy  propriety  in  them  to  set  forth  the  transcendent  love  of  the 
Father  in  sending  his  Son ;  and  of  the  Son  of  God  in  coming  from  heaven, 

And  this  love  is  exceedingly  enhanced  while  we  consider  that  this 

human  soul  of  Christ  was  personally  united  to  the  Divine  Nature,  so  that 
hereby,  God  himself  becomes  manifested  in  the  flesh." 

There  is  much  more  in  Dr.  Watts's  writings  in  support  of  this  belief.  Other 
modern  authors  who  have  professed  and  defended  it,  are  Dr.  H.  More,  (before 
quoted,)  Dr.  Edward  Fowler,  Bishop  of  Gloucester,  Robert  Fleming,  Joseph 
Hussey,  (also  before  quoted,)  Bishop  Gastrell,  Dr.  Thomas  Bennet,  Dr.  Thomas 
Burnet,  Dr.  Knight,  Dr.  Thomas  Godwin,  and  see  Dr.  Watts's  discourses,  en- 
titled "  The  Glory  of  Christ  as  God-Man,  displayed  in  three  Discourses." 

These  quotations  and  references  are  not  made  with  a  view  to  any  particular 
mode  of  explaining-  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  but  only  as  they  bear  upon 
the  question  of  the  pre-existence  of  the  Son  of  Man,  as  the  Man  of  the  Cove- 
nant, the  Glory-Man,  the  Second  Adam,  whoso  image  the  apostle  Paul  teaches, 
1  Cor.  XV.  45,  his  elect  people  will  bear. 

It  is  proper  to  add,  that  Dr.  Owen  on  Heb.  ii.  takes  a  different  view. 


Peter's  confession  of  christ.  157 

manifestation,  though  First  in  the  order  of  being)  he  was  the 
Son  of  God.  Prov.  viii.  22 — 31 ;  Luke  iii.  38 ;  comp.  verse 
23.  In  his  fleshly  nature,  which  he  took  from  the  seed  of 
Abraham,  he  was  called  Son  of  God  by  the  angel  Gabriel, 
Luke  i.  35,  because  begotten  in  that  nature  by  the  overshadow- 
ing power  of  the  Most  High.  In  his  Divine  nature  also,  he  was 
the  Son  of  God,  and  one  in  essence  with  the  Father,  as  is  proved 
by  many  passages.  John  i.  1 ;  1  Tim.  iii.  16 ;  Matt.  i.  23. 
The  emphasis  of  Peter's  answer  lies,  as  we  conceive,  in  the 
words  [tod  ZojvTOi;)  the  living.  Under  one  view,  these  words 
seem  superfluous  ;  for  God  in  his  nature  is  ever-living,  eternally 
the  same  and  unchangeable  in  his  being.  But  as  indicating 
precisely  the  meaning  which  the  apostle  intended  to  express, 
they  are  by  no  means  superfluous.  They  signify  that  as  the 
Son  of  God  he  partook  of  the  life  and  being  of  God — of  his 
nature  and  attributes,  John  v.  26,  just  as  the  son  of  a  mortal 
man  partakes  of  the  nature  of  the  father  who  begat  him.  Thus 
interpreted,  these  words  declare  the  profoundest  mystery  of 
redemption,  to  wit,  the  incarnation  of  God  the  Son,  in  Christ, 
which,  as  we  learn  by  the  next  verse,  could  never  be  known 
except  by  the  revelation  of  the  Father. 

Whether  David  perceived  this  mystery,  when  Nathan  con- 
veyed to  him  God's  promise  concerning  the  Messiah,  cannot  be 
determined,  as  has  been  observed,  by  his  address  on  that  occa- 
sion. 1  Chron.  xvii. ;  2  Sam.  vii.  See  notes  on  Matt.  ix.  4. 
What  struck  his  mind  with  overwhelming  force,  was  the  exalted 
nature  and  attributes  of  our  Lord's  7nanhood.  Nor  can  we 
determine  from  the  words  of  Peter  on  this  occasion,  whether 
he  apprehended  as  David  did.  our  Lord's  greatness  and  glory 
as  the  Second  Adam.  We  infer  that  he  did  not,  as  that  was 
not  the  truth  especially  revealed  to  him  at  that  time.  Hence 
the  importance,  if  not  the  necessity  of  considering  together 
these  difi'erent  revelations,  as  it  is  only  by  combining  them  we 
can  form  any  proper  apprehension  of  the  greatness  and  glory 
of  Christ,  as  God-Man-Messiah. 

Matt.  xvi.  17.  "And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him, 
Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar-jona,  for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not 
revealed  [it]  unto  thee,  but  my  Father  which  is  in  Heaven." 

There  is  an  emphasis  or  animation  in  these  words,  which 
seems  to  indicate  that  our  Lord  rejoiced  that  the  Father  had 
now  at  length  been  pleased  to  discover  this  great  mystery  of 
his  person  to  one  of  his  disciples.  Luke  x.  21;  Matt.  xi.  25. 
It  was  a  great  event,  and  was  soon  followed,  as  we  shall  see,  by 
the  disclosure  of  other  mysteries  by  himself,  of  which  the  dis- 
ciples had  not  the  remotest  conception  before;  we  mean  the 


158  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

mysteries  of  his  death,  resurrection,  and  glorification,  verse  21 ; 
and  xvii.  1,  2.  This  apostle  was  blessed  in  being  chosen  first 
to  receive  and  declare  this  great  mystery  of  the  incarnation. 
He  was  told  that  the  discovery  he  had  made,  was  not  due  to  his 
own  sagacity,  or  any  human  teaching,  or  even  to  his  own 
Divine  teaching,  but  solely  to  the  revelation  of  the  Father. 

It  is  worthy  of  observation  also,  that  our  Lord  addresses  this 
apostle  by  his  original  name,  Simon  Bar-jona,  as  he  did  after 
his  resurrection,  at  the  Sea  of  Tiberias,  John  xxi.  15,  16,  17, 
and  not  by  that  he  had  given  him  at  their  first  interview  before 
his  call.  John  i.  42.  That  there  is  something  significant  in  this 
manner  of  address  we  cannot  doubt.  At  least  it  renders 
probable  the  suggestion,  that  the  name  Peter  was  then  first 
given  him  to  denote  the  fact  that  he  first  declared  the  Divine 
Sonship  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

Matt.  xvi.  18.  "And  I  say  unto  thee  that  thou  art  Peter" 
[that  is,  that  thou  art  he  who  has  rightly  declared  the  mystery 
of  my  person  as  Son  of  Man]  "  and  upon  this  rock"  [this 
foundation,  meaning  Grod's  work  of  revealing  to  his  elect  people 
the  mystery  of  the  incarnation]  "  I  will  build  my  church,  and 
the  gates  of  hell"  [that  is  death]  "shall  not  prevail  against  it." 

Matt.  xvi.  19.  "And  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  [literally,  of  the  heavens,]  and  what- 
soever thou  shalt  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven, 
[literally,  in  the  heavens,]  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on 
earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven,"  [literally,  in  the  heavens.] 

Great  use  is  made  of  these  words  by  Romanists  to  establish 
the  supremacy  of  Peter  over  the  other  apostles,  and  of  those 
who  claim  to  be  his  successors,  over  the  Church  of  Christ,  but 
without  good  reason.  One  argument  against  this  use  of  the 
passage  is  derived  by  Protestant  commentators  from  Matt, 
xviii.  18,  where  the  power  claimed  for  Peter,  it  is  supposed,  is 
expressly  given  to  all  the  apostles,  or  rather  to  the  Church. 
The  verse  reads  thus  :  "Verily  I  say  unto  you,  whatsoever  ye 
shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven," — not  in  the 
heavens,  as  in  Matt.  xvi.  19 — "  and  whatsoever  ye  shall  loose 
on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven" — not  in  the  heavens,  as 
before. 

In  the  context  of  this  passage,  xviii.  15 — 18,  our  Lord  had 
prescribed  a  course  of  proceeding  to  be  observed  towards  an 
ofi"ending  brother,  the  last  step  of  which  was,  to  make  a  com- 
plaint against  him  to  the  Church.  .  This  plainly  is  a  measure  of 
church  discipline.  He  then  added,  addressing  all  the  disciples, 
"Whatsoever  ye  shall  bind,"  &c.  We  observe  here  a  change 
from  the  plural  of  the  word  heaven,  which  the  Lord  used  when 


THE    KEYS    GIVEN   TO    PETER.  159 

addressing  Peter,  to  the  singular,  and  the  first  question  is, 
whether  the  change  is  unimportant?  Are  the  singular  and 
plural  form  of  this  word  (heaven)  indiscriminately  used  ?  See 
notes  on  Matt.  vi.  9.  Or  is  the  change  of  phraseology  signifi- 
cant and  designed  ?  In  the  next  verse.  Matt,  xviii.  19,  the 
Church  is  not  spoken  of  in  a  collective  capacity,  but  as  if  to 
show  the  efiicacy  of  union  in  prayer,  our  Lord  adds  a  similar 
promise  :  "  Again  I  say  unto  you,  that  if  any  two  of  you  shall 
agree  on  earth  as  touching  anything  that  ye  shall  ask,  it  shall 
be  done  for  them  of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven,"  literally, 
in  the  heavens,  reverting  to  the  plural  form  again. 

A  careful  perusal  of  this  Gospel  in  the  original  Greek,  will 
show  very  clearly  that  the  Evangelist  does  not  use  these  two 
forms  of  the  word  indiscriminately,  and  we  assume  that  the 
sense  is  not  the  same  in  the  two  passages  under  consideration. 
The  difference  appears  to  be  this :  In  Matt,  xviii.  18,  our  Lord 
is  speaking  of  his  future  Church,  and  he  gives  them  a  law  or 
rule,  by  which  they  should  regulate  their  conduct  in  the  case  of 
an  offending  brother  who  will  not  listen  to  the  admonitions  of 
the  Church.  Upon  this  precept,  the  discipline  of  excommunica- 
tion is  in  a  great  measure  founded.  To  this  rule  the  apostle 
Paul  plainly  refers  in  2  Thess.  iii.  6.  Our  Lord's  meaning 
appears  to  be,  that  such  an  act,  so  done,  during  the  Church 
state,  and  until  the  end  of  the  dispensation  of  the  Church 
militant,  shall  receive  the  Divine  sanction.  The  promise  to 
Peter,  on  the  other  hand,  is  personal  to  him,  and  has  respect 
to  the  times  of  the  kingdom,  which  are  yet  future,  and  are  to 
follow  the  times  appointed  for  the  gathering  of  the  elect  Church, 
and  therefore  gave  him  no  such  supremacy  in  the  Church  as  has 
been  claimed  for  him. 

What,  precisely,  is  the  import  of  this  promise  to  Peter,  we 
know  not,  nor  can  we  imagine  what  privileges  and  powers  are 
implied  in  the  promise  of  thrones  and  dominion  over  the  twelve 
tribes  of  Israel,  which  our  Lord  afterwards  made  to  all  the 
apostles.  Matt.  xix.  28;  and  see  Luke  xxii.  29,  30.  If  it  were 
allowable  to  conjecture  upon  so  obscure  a  matter,  we  should 
suggest,  that  the  promise  to  Peter  of  the  gift  of  the  keys  is,  in 
some  way,  connected  with  the  second  advent  of  our  Lord,  and 
may  in  some  respects  be  analogous  to  the  oflSce  of  John  th 
Baptist  or  of  Elijah. 

This  dogma  of  the  Romanists  rests  upon  the  assumption  that 
the  Church  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  which  John  the  Baptist 
and  our  Lord  preached,  whereas  the  times  of  the  kingdom  are 
the  times  of  the  restitution  of  all  things,  to  be  introduced  at  the 
second  coming  of  the  Lord. 


160  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

Matt.  xvi.  20.  "Then  charged  he  his  disciples  that  they 
should  tell  no  man  that  he  was  Jesus,*  the  Christ." 

This  injunction,  it  will  be  borne  in  mind,  was  given  after  the 
death  of  John  the  Baptist.  As  we  have  already  suggested 
(see  notes  on  Matt.  xiv.  10,)  the  trial  of  the  nation  was  then 
virtually  over,  and  our  Lord's  ministry  among  the  people  was 
directed  to  the  reception  of  himself  by  individuals  as  the  Son 
of  Man,  rather  than  to  the  reception  of  himself  bj/  the  nation  as 
their  Messiah,  and  this  may  have  been  one  of  the  motives  of 
this  command.  But  it  should  be  observed  also,  that  our  Lord 
did  not  at  any  time  during  his  ministry,  publicly  assume  the 
title  of  Christ  until  after  his  betrayal,  Mark  xiv.  62,  and  then 
his  public  ministry  was  ended.  Then,  indeed,  such  an  avowal 
was  necessary,  in  order  to  show  more  explicitly  the  public 
and  formal  rejection  of  him  by  the  nation  in  that  character, 
notwithstanding  his  many  miracles,  and  his  sufferings  as  their 
king. 

The  reasons  why  our  Lord  did  not  publicly  assume  the 
character  and  title  of  Christ,  have  already  been  sufficiently 
stated  in  the  notes  on  Matt.  xi.  3,  to  which  the  reader  is 
referred. f 

*  Eminent  critics  agree,  that  the  word  'ixo-cuc  should  be  omitted  from  the 
text.  There  are  fifty-four  MSS.,  it  is  said,  that  do  not  contain  this  word. 
Besides,  it  is  omitted  in  several  versions,  and  by  most  of  the  early  Christian 
writers  who  quote  this  verse.  We  should  therefore,  read,  "that  they  should 
tell  no  man  that  he  was  the  Christ." 

f  Every  reader  of  the  New  Testament,  must  have  observed  that  Jesus  (not 
Christ)  is  the  name  usually  employed  by  the  Evangelists  to  designate  our 
Lord's  person.  It  occurs  about  six  hundred  times  in  the  four  Gospels.  The 
name  or  title  Christ,  on  the  other  hand,  occurs  but  seldom;  and  the  name 
Jesus  Christ  still  more  unfrequently  in  the  Gospels.  In  Matthew's  Gospel,  the 
name  Christ  occurs  eleven  times;  in  Mark's,  six;  in  Luke's,  twelve;  and  in 
John's,  eighteen  times.  The  name  Jesus  Christ,  occurs  in  Matt.  i.  1,  18; 
Jesus  the  Christ,  in  Matt.  xvi.  20;  Jesus  called  Christ,  in  Matt.  i.  16.  In 
Luke's  Gospel  he  is  nowhere  designated  by  both  these  names.  If  we  turn 
to  the  Epistles,  we  find  the  reverse  to  be  the  fact.  The  apostles  in  their 
Epistles,  and  Luke  in  the  Acts,  commonly  apply  to  him  both  names.  Jesus 
Christ,  or  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  or  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  or  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  but  seldom  Jesus  without  addition,  although  sometimes 
they  do.  See  Philip,  ii.  10 ;  1  Thess.  i.  10 ;  Heb.  ii.  9.  In  Paul's  Epistles, 
there  are  nearly  two  hundred  examples  of  one  or  the  other  of  these  designa- 
tions. 

This  change  is  too  remarkable  to  be  accounted  for  on  the  ground  of  popular 
usage,  which  Dr.  Campbell  suggests ;  for,  as  Calvin  observes,  Inst,  book  ii, 
chap.  xvi.  §  1,  "as  the  name  Jesus  was  not  given  him  rashly,  or  by  fortuitous 
accident,  or  by  the  will  of  man,"  so  we  suggest,  the  change  from  the  name 
Jesus,  to  Christ  or  Jesus  Christ  after  his  ascension  was  not  unadvisedly  or 
accidentally  made, -nor  did  it  come  through  mere  usage  or  the  pleasure  of  man. 
He  was  not  called  Christ  during  his  public  ministry,  because  he  did  not 
publicly  assume  that  character,  for  the  reasons  above  suggested.  He  was  called 
Christ  after  his  ascension,  because  he  really  was  the  Christ,  and  was  rejected 
by  the  nation  in  that  character.     See  notes  on  Matt.  xvii.  22. 


chkist's  rebuke  of  peter.  161 

Matt.  xvi.  21.  "From  that  time  forth  began  Jesus  to  show 
unto  his  disciples,  how  that  he  must  go  unto  Jerusalem,  and 
suffer  many  things  of  the  elders,  and  chief  priests,  and  scribes, 
and  be  killed,  and  be  raised  again  the  third  day." 

It  is  very  interesting  to  notice  the  method  our  Lord  observed 
in  the  instruction  of  his  disciples,  apart  from  the  multitudes, 
after  the  death  of  John  the  Baptist.  See  John  xvi.  4,  and 
notes  on  Matt.  xiv.  10.  The  words  {dno  tore)  from  that  time, 
see  notes  on  Matt.  iv.  12 — 17,  refer  to  the  time  of  the  revela- 
tion to  Peter  of  the  mystery  of  the  incarnation,  verse  16. 
This  mystery  once  apprehended,  the  Lord  proceeds  immediately 
to  declare  the  next  in  order,  namely,  the  mystery  of  his  death 
and  resurrection.  But  these  mysteries  they  were  slow  to 
apprehend.  Matt.  xvi.  22;  xvii.  23;  Mark  viii.  32;  Luke 
xviii.  34,  and  really  did  not,  until  after  the  events  foretold  had 
occurred.  Luke  xxiv.  20,  21;  John  xx.  9;  Mark  ix.  10.  Not 
understanding  these  mysteries,  they  were  of  course  incapable 
of  comprehending  the  allusions  he  made  to  his  ascension,  John 
vi.  62,  and  his  future  advent  in  glory,  John  xvi.  12.  Yet  he 
taught  this  in  the  plainest  terms,  verse  27 ;  and  to  enable  some 
of  them  better  to  apprehend  his  meaning,  was  transfigured 
before  them,  within  eight  days  after  the  first  of  these  mysteries 
was  revealed  to  Peter.  It  was  a  memorable  week  of  their 
discipleship;  for  in  this  brief  space  of  time  the  five  great 
mysteries  of  redemption  were  made  known  to  them,  namely, 
the  incarnation,  the  death,  the  resurrection,  the  glorification, 
and  future  advent  of  the  Lord. 

Matt.  xvi.  22.  "  Then  Peter  took  him  and  began  to  rebuke 
him,  saying.  Be  it  far  from  thee,  Lord:  this  shall  not  be  unto 
thee." 

Peter  had  just  been  taught  by  inspiration  one  great  mystery, 
but  nothing  more.  Of  the  rest  he  was  quite  as  ignorant  as  his 
fellow-apostles,  and  remained  so  until  he  was  taught  by  the 
fulfilment  of  the  predicted  events.  "  Men  frequently  teach," 
or  attempt  to  teach,  "all  things  at  once;  Divine  wisdom  acts 
far  otherwise."  Bengel.  In  the  same  manner  the  Avhole  of 
Divine  revelation  has  been  given  to  the  world.     Ileb.  i.  1. 

Peter's  observation,  however  affectionately  intended,  Avas  not 
only  rash  and  contradictory  to  the  Saviour  and  the  Scriptures, 
but  prompted  by  a  carnal  mind.  It  was  wholly  at  variance 
with  the  hidden  wisdom  of  God,  in  regard  to  the  world's  redemp- 
tion, as  appears  by  our  Lord's  reply. 

Matt.  xvi.  23.    "  But  he  turned  and  said  to  Peter,  Get  thee 
behind  me,  Satan:  thou  art  an  offence  unto  me:"   [axavdaXov, 
or  an  impediment  in  the  path  of  my  duty  and  office,]  "for  thou 
21 


162  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

savourest  not  the  things  that  be  of  God,  but  those  that  be  of 
men." 

Peter  was  looking  to  a  kingdom  in  the  unredeemed  world, 
groaning  as  it  was,  and  still  is,  under  the  curse  of  God.  He 
had  no  conception  of  the  expedient  Divine  Wisdom  had  devised 
to  repair  the  ruin  brought  upon  the  world  and  upon  men  at  the 
fall  by  the  curse.  As  however  he  confidently  believed  that 
Jesus  was  the  Christ,  verse  16,  he  confidently  expected  his 
kingdom  would  then  be  established,  and  with  this  thought  in 
his  mind  and  these  words  on  his  lips,  it  is  plain  he  was  looking 
for  a  much  more  inglorious  dominion  for  his  Master,  than  was 
worthy  of  him  to  establish  or  accept.  It  was  a  kingdom  of  the 
same  kind  as  that  which  Satan  proffered,  and  which  the  Lord 
rejected  with  the  same  words  of  rebuke  he  employed  on  this 
occasion.  Luke  iv.  8.  Unwittingly,  therefore,  Peter,  though 
an  attached  friend  and  follower,  touched  upon  the  same  point 
as  Satan  did,  and  so  far  as  his  words  can  be  supposed  to  have 
had  any  persuasive  effect,  they  were  a  temptation  to  him  to 
give  up  the  work  of  suffering  and  death,  through  which  alone, 
his  kingdom  could  be  established  consistently  with  his  own  glory 
and  the  Divine  plan.  In  this  way  we  account  for  the  sharp- 
ness and  severity  of  the  Saviour's  rebuke,  and  for  the  same 
form  of  words  he  had  employed  in  his  answer  to  the  tempter. 

Matt.  xvi.  21—27. 

A  close  and  natural  connection  of  thought  runs  through 
these  verses.  Peter  in  his  ignorance  would  have  his  Master 
exempted  from  the  sufferings  and  death  he  had  now  for  the  first 
time  plainly  predicted.  In  this  he  savoured  of  the  things  of 
men.  As  Peter's  remark  showed  this,  the  Lord  took  occasion 
to  declare  with  equal  plainness  what  his  followers  must  expect, 
as  if  he  had  said,  "  I  must  suffer  many  things  of  the  elders  and 
chief  priests  and  Scribes,  and  be  put  to  death.  And  you,  my 
followers,  must  be  prepared  for  the  same  usage.  Covet  not  the 
kingdoms  or  the  glory  of  this  world,  but  take  up  the  cross  of 
crucifixion  as  the  slave  does,  and  suffer  death  upon  it,  if  fidelity 
to  me  requires  it.  Thinking  and  feeling  thus,  you  will  savour 
of  the  things  of  God,  for  it  has  been  appointed  that  only  through 
my  sufferings  and  death  my  kingdom  can  be  established." 

This  thought  brings  out  the  meaning  of  what  follows.  "  The 
loss  of  life  in  this  way  is  no  loss  of  life  at  all.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  is  the  divinely  appointed  way  to  gain  eternal  life. 
The  world,  and  all  the  kingdoms  of.  this  world,  are  really  of  no 
moment.  The  honour  and  the  eminence  they  can  confer,  will 
profit  you  nothing."  The  Saviour  put  a  case  of  extreme  suf- 
fering— that  of  a  torturing,  lingering  death,  with  ignominy. 
He  means  to  requiret  he  entire  and  supreme  devotion  of  his 


THE   VALUE    OF   THE    SOUL.  163 

followers  under  all,  even  the  most  trying  circumstances.  He 
intimates  too,  that  occasions  will  occur,  in  which  they  will  be 
put  to  this  severest  of  tests.  To  counterpoise  this,  he  adds, 
that  the  Son  of  Man,  though  he  must  thus  suffer,  shall  never- 
theless afterwards  come  in  the  glory  of  his  Father,  with  retri- 
butions and  rewards  for  every  man  according  to  his  works. 

Our  Lord  here  teaches,  by  implication,  if  not  explicitly,  his 
second  advent  in  glory,  although  it  is  not  probable  that  the 
apostles  at  that  time,  comprehended  his  meaning.  Luke  xviii.  34. 

Matt.  xvi.  26.  "For  what  is  a  man  profited,  if  he  shall 
gain  the  whole  world  and  lose  his  own  soul?  or  what  shall  a 
man  give  in  exchange  for  his  soul?" 

Man  has  been  called  a  microcosm,  and  such  indeed  he  is  even 
in  this  life.  He  is  a  little  world  of  capabilities,  faculties,  and 
endowments,  each  of  which  is  susceptible  of  ever-increasing 
enlargement  during  unending  ages.  Especially  is  this  true  of 
man  as  redeemed  and  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  Every- 
thing else,  earth-born  or  earthly,  is  stinted  to  certain  measures. 
This  boon  of  renewed  human  nature  comes  from  the  union  of 
the  believer  to  Christ  through  the  perpetual  indwelling  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  whose  office  it  is,  not  only  to  sustain  and  sanctify 
him,  but  to  impart  to  each  and  every  power  and  faculty  of  his 
nature  continual  and  ever-increasing  vigour  and  growth.  See 
John  i.  4.  We  know  not  that  such  is  the  condition  of  any 
other  order  of  God's  creatures.  Even  the  holy  angels,  although 
they  may,  and  no  doubt  do,  advance  from  age  to  age  in  know- 
ledge and  happiness  in  the  service  of  their  Maker — as  man 
now  does  in  the  progress  of  his  earthly  career — yet  do  not 
sustain  that  relation  to  the  Redeemer  which  his  elect  people 
do,  Heb.  ii.  16 ;  nor  have  we  reason  to  suppose  that  they  are 
the  subjects  of  that  peculiar  creative  work  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  will  ever  be  performing  upon  the  redeemed  of  mankind. 
Much  less  have  we  reason  to  suppose,  that  those  of  mankind  in 
whom  the  Holy  Spirit  does  not  dwell,  will  share  in  this  privi- 
lege or  prerogative  of  the  members  of  the  body  of  Christ.  John 
XV.  1 — 6.  Their  powers  and  faculties  may  remain  what  they 
may  be  or  will  be  Avhen  their  day  of  grace  is  over ;  for  they  are 
the  subjects  of  the  righteous  judgment  of  God,  who  will  render 
to  them  individually  according  to  their  deeds.  Rom.  ii.  5,  6. 
Yet  if  we  lay  out  of  view  the  retributions  of  the  day  of  judg- 
ment, who  can  estimate  the  extent  of  their  loss  ?  To  fail  of 
that  union  to  the  Redeemer,  which  brings  them  under  the 
tuition  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  insures  to  them  his  eternal 
indwelling,  is  to  fail  of  the  great  end  of  their  being,  and  in 
itself  is  a  loss  which  cannot  be  measured.  Even  if  the  Divine 
goodness,  as  some  vainly  imagine,  were  still  to  mete  out  to 


164  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

them  that  measure  of  happiness  which  they  enjoy  in  this  life, 
their  station  would  be  fixed  among  the  lowest  ranks  of  creation, 
while  those  in  whom  the. Holy  Spirit  dwells  will  be  advanced 
by  him  from  one  degree  of  beauty,  and  glory,  and  happiness, 
and  power  to  another,  and  their  capacities  for  the  service  and 
the  enjoyment  of  God  will  be  for  ever  expanding  through  the 
cycles  of  eternity.  What  mind  can  follow  the  career  of  the 
least  of  God's  elect  people  ? 

The  apostle  Paul  calls  believers  "  the  temple  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  1  Cor.  iii.  16,  17;  vi.  19;  2  Cor.  vi.  16.  There  is 
much  more  in  this  expression  than  we  are  apt. to  consider. 
We  are  not  to  restrict  it  to  the  present  life.  The  apostle  took 
an  enlarged  view  of  the  destination  of  the  Church.  The  accom- 
plished aggregate  of  God's  elect,  raised  to  glory  by  the  power 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  constitute  the  temple  of  which  he  spoke. 
This  temple  is  wholly  the  Spirit's  Avorkmanship,  Eph.  ii.  10,  21, 
and  he  will  for  ever  dwell  in  it,  and  adorn  it  with  new  glories, 
and  enlarge  and  strengthen  it  by  his  almighty  energies.  1  Cor. 
iii.  9 ;  Eph.  iii.  10.  With  such  views  we  should  ponder  the 
Saviour's  question.  What  advantage  would  a  man  gain,  though 
the  profits  of  his  worldliness  were  the  world  itself,  if  thereby  he 
suffers  even  the  smallest  damage  in  his  soul,  or  fail  of  attaining 
these  high  privileges  of  the  saints  ? 

The  expression  {ty^u  de  (po-^'fjv  avroo  ^r^/jucodrj)  lose  his  own  soul^ 
may  perhaps  be  understood  in  the  sense  of  suffering  damage, 
injury,  or  loss  in  the  soul,  or  in  respect  {xaza  rr^v  <l>oy_rjv)  to  the 
soul.  The  expression  seems  to  have  been  transferred  from  the 
business  of  a  merchant  whose  aims  are  to  make  profit  or  gain 
by  traffic.  The  other  expression,  "  What  shall  a  man  gain  in 
exchange,'"  &c.  {d.vTa)layp.a),  may  be  applied  to  the  case  of  the 
entire  loss  of  it.  Thus  understood,  these  two  questions  have 
respect  to  different  classes  of  persons — the  first,  to  those  saved 
ones  who  nevertheless  fail,  through  their  worldliness,  of  the 
exceeding  blessedness  and  glory  proffered  to  them,  and  the  last 
to  those  who.  shall  be  finally  and  for  ever  lost. 

Matt.  xvi.  27.  "For  the  Son  of  Man  shall  come  in  the 
glory  of  his  Father  with  his  angels  ;  and  then  shall  he  reward 
every  man  according  to  his  Avorks."     See  John  v.  28,  29. 

Every  person  familiar  with  the  Gospels  must  have  observed 
that  our  Lord  frequently  spoke  of  himself,  as  of  a  third  person; 
but  it  was  only  when  he  applied  to  himself  the  designation  in 
this  text — Son  of  Man.  Yet  often,  when  speaking  of  himself, 
he  used  the  pronominal  and  customary  forms  of  personal 
reference,  as  in  his  sermon  on  the  mount.  Matt.  v. — vii.,  and 
in  the  discourses  recorded  by  John,  v. — x. 

Various  reasons  have  been  given  for  this  peculiarity,  but  the 


THE   TRANSFIGURATION.  165 

true  reason  appears  to  be,  that  our  Lord  used  this  form  of 
desicirnation  as  a  titular  distinction,  to  denote  his  rehition  to  this 
worhl  as  its  Sovereign  or  Lord,  As  an. earthly  king  may  speak 
of  himself  as  the  king,  to  denote  his  relation  to  his  people,  so 
the  Lord  Jesus  spoke  of  himself  as  the  Son  of  Man,  to  denote 
his  relation  to  the  world  as  its  Lord.  The  context  confirms 
this  view.  Royalty,  and  absolute,  universal  government  over 
the  world  and  the  whole  race  of  mankind,  belong  to  him  as  the 
Son  of  Man,  which  is  as  much  as  to  say,  that,  as  Son  of  Man, 
he  is  the  King  of  the  kings,  and  the  Lord  of  the  lords,  of  the 
whole  earth.  It  is  in  no  respect  synonymous,  as  some  have 
supposed,  with  his  title  Messiah.  The  title  Messiah  has  espe- 
cial reference  to  Israel  and  the  throne  of  David,  Luke  i.  32,  33, 
and  to  his  elect  Church,  the  Israel  of  God,  (see  notes  on  Matt. 
ix.  4,  vii.  8,)  as  we  shall  have  occasion  to  show  hereafter.  See 
notes  on  Matt.  xvii.  22. 

Matt.  xvi.  28.  "Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  There  be  some 
standing  here  which  shall  not  taste  of  death  till  they  see  the 
Son  of  Man  coming  in  his  kingdom." 

With  this  promise  the  conversation  near  Cresarea  Philippi 
was  concluded.  Our  Lord  commenced  it,  we  have  seen,  by  the 
inquiry,  "What  men  said  of  him  as  Son  of  Man."  Having 
received  their  answer,  he  repeated  the  question  to  the  apostles. 
Peter  answered  it  correctly,  and  received  his  Master's  blessing. 
He  then  spoke  to  them  for  the  first  time  plainly,  of  his  rejection 
by  the  nation,  his  sufferings  and  death.  This  drew  from  Peter 
an  expression  extremely  offensive  to  the  Saviour,  for  which  he 
was  severely  rebuked.  This  done,  the  Saviour  returns  to  the 
subject  of  suffering,  and  adds  that  they  also,  if  they  would  follow 
him,  must  be  willing  to  suffer,  as  he  was  about  to  suffer,  and 
even  give  up  their  lives  in  his  service.  This  was  very  discour- 
aging to  them.  It  was  so  opposite  to  their  expectations  and 
hopes,  that  it  might  naturally  be  expected  to  shake  their  pur- 
poses, unless  counteracted  by  some  strong  assurance  of  the 
ultimate  attainment  of  their  hopes,  and  some  demonstration  of 
the  nature  and  glory  of  the  things  he  promised.  A  fit  occasion, 
therefore,  had  occurred  for  the  Saviour  to  make  an  extraordi- 
nary manifestation  of  his  glory,  as  a  counterpoise,  so  to  speak, 
to  the  mournful  and  discouraging  disclosures  he  had  just  made. 
For  these  reasons,  among  others,  we  suppose  that  our  Lord,  in 
this  promise,  tacitly  referred  to  his  intended  transfiguration, 
which  occurred  on  the  same  day  of  the  week  following;  thus 
bringing  within  the  compass  of  eight  days,  to  the  knowledge  of 
at  least  three  of  the  apostles,  the  great  mysteries  of  the  king- 
dom, of  which  before  they  had  no  conception.    Such  appears  to 


166  NOTES  ON   SCRIPTURE. 

be  the  connection  of  the  transfiguration  with  this  conversation 
of  our  Lord  with  his  disciples. 

In  confirmation  of  this  view,  it  may  be  remarked,  that  Mark 
and  Luke,  as  well  as  IMatthew,  narrate  the  transfiguration  in 
immediate  connection  with  this  promise.  Luke  varies  a  little 
in  his  expressions  from  the  other  Evangelists.  He  says  it  was 
about  an  eight  days  after  these  words,  {/^era  rouq  Iojooq  tou- 
to'j:;,  ix.  28,)  by  which  he  may  refer  to  this  promise  in  particular, 
or  to  the  whole  conversation  the  Saviour  had  with  the  disciples 
on  that  occasion. 

But  understood  either  way,  the  transfiguration  having  occur- 
red so  soon  afterwards,  and  neither  of  the  Evangelists  having 
recorded  anything  the  Saviour  said  or  did  during  the  interval, 
are  very  probable  grounds  for  believing  that  they  regarded  the 
transfiguration  the  fulfilment  of  that  promise. 

Dr.  Whitby,  however,  thought  it  "wonderful  that  some  com- 
mentators, both  ancient  and  modern,  should  refer  this  passage 
to  our  Lord's  transfiguration  on  the  mount,  mentioned  in  the 
following  chapter."  But  his  interpretation,  which  refers  it  to 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans,  (a.d.  70,)  destroys 
the  connection  of  thought  between  this  verse  and  the  context. 
If  it  be  correct,  all  the  apostles,  except  John,  died  without 
seeing  what  the  Lord  had  promised.  His  chief  arguments  are 
these:  '■'•Seeing  the  transfiguration,  could  not  be  seeing  the 
Son  of  Man  coming  in  his  kingdom ;  because  his  kingdom  was 
not  begun  till  after  the  resurrection,  when  all  power  in  heaven 
and  earth  was  given  to  him."  Matt,  xxviii.  18.  But  see  Matt. 
xi.  27.  His  next  argument  is,  that  "it  was  as  true  of  all  the 
disciples  as  it  was  of  Peter,  James,  and  John,  that  they  should 
not  taste  of  death  until  after  that  vision." 

Our  Lord  said  nothing  to  the  contrary  of  this.  He  said  that 
some  of  them  should  not  taste  of  death  till  they  saw  the  Son 
of  Man  coming  in  his  kingdom;  not  that  some  of  them  sJiould 
taste  of  death  before.  None  of  them  did  taste  of  death  until 
long  after  that  vision,  but  nine  of  them  did  taste  of  death  with- 
out seeing  it,  and  this  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  promise. 
To  the  first  of  these  arguments  it  may  be  replied,  that  the 
transfiguration  was  a  real  though  transient  manifestation  of  the 
glory  of  the  Son  of  Man.  Moses  and  Elias  realli/  appeared. 
It  was  a  real  appearing  of  a  bright  cloud — the  Shekinah  or 
symbol  of  the  Divine  presence,  as  we  suppose.  There  was  a 
real  voice  issuing  out  of  the  cloud.  In  one  Avord,  the  transac- 
tion, in  all  its  parts  and  concomitants,  was  a  reality,  not  a  mere 
scenic  representation,  or  a  mere  impression  produced  upon  the 
minds  of  the  apostles  without  a  corresponding  outward  reality. 
It  was,  however,  an  unearthly  reality,  and  consequently  could 


THE   TRANSFIGURATION.  167 

be  nothing  else  tlian  an  actual  appearing  of  the  Son  of  Man  in 
his  form  of  glory,  just  as  he  will  appear  at  his  second  coming 
in  his  kingdom.  These  three  apostles,  therefore,  did  see  the 
Son  of  Man  coming,  i.  e.  as  he  will  come,  in  his  kingdom, 
although  they  did  not  see  the  kingdom  come. 

Thus  we  are  to  understand  John  i.  14:  "And  we  beheld  his 
glory — the  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father;"  and 
2  Pet.  i.  16,  17:  "For  we  have  not  followed  cunningly  devised 
fables,  when  we  made  known  unto  you  the  poiver  and  coming  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  but  were  eye-witnesses  of  his  majesty." 
This  apostle  evidently  refers  to  some  account  he  had  previously 
given  to  the  persons  he  was  writing  to,  of  the  transfiguration, 
after  our  Lord's  resurrection,  and  he  proceeds :  "  For  he 
received  from  God  the  Father  honour  and  glory,  when  there 
came  such  a  voice  to  him  from  the  excellent  glory.  This  is  my 
beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased."  Peter  felt  no  diffi- 
culty in  calling  the  transfiguration  "the  power  and  coming," 
or,  "the  coming  in  power"  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  nor  in 
saying  that  he  Avas  an  eye-witness  of  his  majesty,  when  he 
beheld  hira  transfigured,  attended  by  Moses  and  Elijah,  and 
overshadowed  by  the  cloud,  or  symbol  of  the  Divine  presence. 
And  to  remove  all  ambiguity  as  to  what  he  referred  to,  he  adds : 
"And  this  voice  which  came  from  heaven  we  heard  when  we 
were  with  him  in  the  holy  mount.'' 

If  the  connection  of  thought  be  that  before  suggested,  and 
if  the  object  of  the  Saviour  was  to  teach  these  favoured  disci- 
ples, by  an  ocular  demonstration,  the  mystery  of  his  glorifica- 
tion, in  connection  with  the  mystery  of  his  death  and  resurrec- 
tion, there  w\as  no  other  event  to  which  this  promise  of  the 
Saviour  could  refer;  for  none  of  them,  it  is  unnecessary  to 
observe,  lived  to  see  the  actual  coming  and  establishment  of  his 
kingdom  over  the  earth.  And  if  this  was  not  the  Saviour's 
purpose,  what  could  it  be  ?  Upon  Dr.  Whitby's  hypothesis, 
what  object  could  the  Saviour  have  in  telling  the  disciples  in  so 
obscure  a  manner,  that  one  of  their  number  should  survive  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  ?  Would  that  strengthen  or  encourage 
them  to  take  up  the  cross  and  follow  him  ;  to  deny  themselves ; 
to  renounce  all  the  hopes  they  had  cherished  of  a  kingdom  to 
be  possessed  without  shame  or  suffering?  That  the  motive  we 
have  suggested  is  worthy  of  the  Saviour  to  hold  out,  is  proved 
by  Heb.  xii.  2.  Any  other  interpretation,  especially  Dr.  Whit- 
by's, dislocates  the  verse  from  its  natural  connections,  and 
deprives  the  promise  of  any  perceptible  motive  or  meaning. 

But,  it  will  be  inquired.  Why  did  the  Saviour  express  himself 
so  vaguely,  if  he  secretly  intended  to  fulfil  the  promise,  within 
the  compass  of  a  week  ?     "  There  be  some  standing  here  that 


168  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

shall  not  taste  of  death,  till  they  see  the  Son  of  Man  coming  in 
his  kingdom."  These  expressions  would  be  natural,  if  applied 
to  an  event  known  or  believed  to  be  remote,  but  would  they  be 
so,  if  applied  to  an  event  known  to  be  so  near  ? 

This  form  of  expression  no  doubt  influenced  Dr.  "Whitby.  It 
has  served,  with  many  commentators,  to  divert  the  mind  from 
the  event  the  Saviour  intended,  and  this  so  far  from  being  an 
objection,  is  a  further  reason  for  applying  the  promise  to  the 
transfiguration.  For  consider,  the  transfiguration  Avas  the  most 
private  of  all  our  Lord's  miracles.  Three  only,  of  the  twelve 
apostles,  were  permitted  to  witness  it.  It  was  designed  to  be 
kept  a  secret  until  after  the  Lord's  resurrection.  Matthew  and 
Mark  say  that  he  expressly  charged  them  not  to  speak  of  it, 
till  that  event.  Luke  does  not  mention  this  charge,  but  merely 
says,  that  "  they  kept  it  silent  and  did  not  speak  of  it  to  any 
man  in  those  days."  Now,  such  being  the  purpose  of  the 
Saviour,  we  may  suppose  that  if  he  spoke  of  it  at  all,  he  would 
do  so  only  in  a  very  indistinct,  indefinite  way.  He  would  not 
say  particularly  that  some  of  them  should  see  him  assume  his 
form  of  glory,  and  call  to  his  presence  two  of  the  departed  saints. 
Nor  would  he  definitely  announce  the  time  when  he  purposed  to 
fulfil  the  promise.  He  would  not  say,  within  a  week  or  within  a 
year  some  of  you  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  coming  in  his  king- 
dom. For,  when  the  tim.e  had  elapsed,  there  would  be  an 
inquiry  among  them,  who  had  seen  the  fulfilment  of  the  Lord's 
promise.  The  apostles,  it  need  not  be  said,  were  inquisitive. 
They  had  much  conversation  together,  and  sometimes  disputes. 
James  and  John  excited  the  displeasure  of  their  companions,  by 
an  ambitious  request.  It  is  unnecessary  to  add,  the  Saviour 
understood  their  characters  perfectly.  He  knew  their  weak- 
nesses and  faults,  and  shaped  his  conduct  with  consummate  skill 
and  prudence.  Had  it  been  known  which  were  the  favoured 
disciples,  might  not  the  others  have  felt  grieved  ?  See  Matt. 
XX.  20 — 28.  Perhaps  the  favour  shown  to  James  and  John,  in 
admitting  them  to  see  the  transfiguration,  emboldened  them  to 
ask  for  pre-eminence  in  the  kingdom.  However  this  may  be, 
our  Lord,  by  so  indefinite  a  promise,  gave  no  occasion  to  those 
whom  he  did  not  intend  thus  to  favoui*,  to  make  any  inquiry 
about  its  fulfilment,  and  thus  Peter,  James,  and  John,  were  not 
known  to  be  the  favoured  ones,  until  after  our  Lord  had  risen 
from  the  dead.  Then  an  entirely  new  order  of  things  com- 
menced. By  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  were  all 
taught  very  different  views  of  the  kingdom  from  those  they  had 
previously  entertained.  Their  envy  and  ambition  were  extin- 
guished, and  the  eight  not  favoured,  rejoiced  heartily  in  the 
favour  shown  to  the  three. 


THE   TRANSFIGURATION.  169 

Now  a  promise  made  with  such  objects  in  view,  as  it  would 
necessarily  be  indefinite  in  its  terms,  would  naturally  produce 
the  same  effect  upon  the  minds  of  commentators  as  it  did  upon 
the  minds  of  the  apostles  at  that  time.  None  of  the  apostles 
then  knew  what  the  Lord  intended.  Afterwards  they  did,  and 
the  method  which  the  Evangelists  took  to  remove  the  obscurity, 
was  to  narrate,  in  immediate  connection,  the  promise  and  fulfil- 
ment.    The  connection  comments  on  the  words. 

Matt.  xvii.  1.  "And  after  six  days  Jesus  taketh  Peter, 
James,  and  John  his  brother,  and  bringeth  them  up  into  a  high 
mountain  apart  by  themselves."  Mark  ix.  2 ;  Luke  ix.  28. 

Luke  says  it  was  "  about  an  eight  days  after  these  words" — 
meaning  perhaps  not  only  the  promise  but  the  whole  discourse, 
of  which  the  promise  was  the  conclusion — in  which  computation 
he  includes  the  day  on  which  the  promise  was  made,  and  also 
the  day  of  the  transfiguration,  whereas  Matthew  and  Mark 
exclude  both  these  days;  so  that  there  is  no  discrepancy 
between  the  Evangelists.  It  is  more  important,  however,  to 
notice  the  particularity  with  which  all  of  them  denote  the 
interval  of  time.  According  to  Dr.  Whitby's  interpretation, 
and,  indeed,  qjiy  other  than  that  before  stated,  this  precise 
notation  of  the  time  can  serve  no  other  purpose  than  that  of 
denoting  the  order  of  its  occurrence.  The  Evangelists  might 
as  well  have  said  {[xera  xauva)  after  tliese  things,  or  [xac  eyeusTo) 
it  came  to  pa.ss  {/isza  zaova)  after  these  things,  which  are  the 
phrases  they  generally  use.  The  design  of  this  particularity 
we  suggest,  as  before,  is  to  connect  the  promise,  in  Matt.  xvi. 
28,  with  the  transfiguration  as  its  fulfilment.  Thus  understood, 
it  shows  how  the  Lord  hastened  to  allay  the  severity  of  his 
rebuke  to  Peter  by  this  extraordinary  privilege,  and  how  soon 
he  practically  taught  these  favoured  disciples  to  look  through 
and  beyond  the  sufferings  and  ignominy  he  must  endure,  to  the 
glory  which  would  follow.  1  Pet.  i.  11. 

And  here,  it  is  proper  to  observe,  that  our  Lord  exhibited 
different  degrees  of  evidence  of  his  Divine  nature  and  glory  to 
different  persons.  To  his  disciples  generally,  he  exhibited  more 
than  to  the  multitudes — to  the  twelve  apostles  more  than  to 
his  other  disciples — to  Peter,  James,  and  John,  more  than  to 
the  rest  of  the  twelve,  and  perhaps  to  Peter  more  than  to  James 
or  John.  Certain  it  is,  that  Peter  was  distinguished  by  the 
Father  above  his  fellow  apostles,  in  being  first  taught  the  mys- 
tery of  the  incarnation,  as  has  been  remarked  upon  Matt.  xvi. 
17 ;  and  the  reader  need  not  be  reminded,  that  there  were 
especial  reasons  why  one  of  the  twelve  should  not  be  a  sharer 
in  the  extraordinary  favours  of  his  Master.   See  John  vi.  70. 

It  is  noticeable,  also,  that  while  the  Evangelists  arc  precise 

99 


170  NOTES   ON    SCRIPTURE. 

in  denoting  the  time,  they  are  very  indefinite  in  respect  to  the 
"place  of  the  transfiguration.  Matthew  and  Mark  describe  it  as 
a  high  mountain,  Luke  calls  it  "the  mountain,"  as  though  he 
had  reference  to  some  particular  mountain,  but  does  not  inti- 
mate what  mountain.  Jerome  who  died  a.d.  420,  at  the  age  of 
80,  that  is  nearly  400  years  after  this  event  (Ad  Eustochiam 
Epitaph.  Paulie,)  has  preserved  the  traditionary  opinion  or 
belief  that  Mount  Tabor  was  the  mountain  referred  to  by  the 
Evangelists.  Josephus  says  that  Tabor  was  in  Galilee,  twenty 
leagues  and  more  from  Cfesarea  Philippi;  and  from  Mark, 
ix.  30,  we  may  infer  that  our  Lord  was  not  in  Galilee  when  he 
rejoined  his  other  disciples  the  next  day.     Luke  ix.  37. 

Others  suppose  our  Lord  was  transfigured  upon  Mount 
Panium,  situated  at  the  fountains  of  Jordan,  near  the  foot  of 
which  Coesarea  Philippi  was  built.  See  Lamy's  Harmony. 
This  opinion  also  rests  upon  conjecture.  None  of  the  apostles, 
except  Peter,  James,  and  John,  knew  the  mountain  until  after 
the  resurrection  of  our  Lord.  Whether  they  spoke  of  it  after- 
wards definitely  to  others,  we  do  not  know,  but  the  apostle 
Peter  when  writing  of  it,  2  Pet.  i.  18,  is  not  more  definite  than 
the  Evangelists,  and  John,  i.  14,  when  referring  to  the  trans- 
figuration, makes  no  allusion  whatever  to  the  place  where  it 
occurred.  This  obscurity  was  designed  in  order,  perhaps,  that 
no  occasion  should  be  given  to  the  superstitious  practices  which 
it  was  foreseen  would  have  followed,  if  the  Evangelists  had 
definitely  marked  the  spot  of  this  most  wonderful  transaction. 
Matt.  xvii.  2.  "  And  was  transfigured  before  them." 
It  will  be  useful  before  proceeding  further,  to  collect  from 
the  three  Evangelists,  and  arrange  in  their  order,  all  the 
circumstances  attending  the  transfiguration.  This  we  have 
attempted  to  do  as  follows.  But  the  reader  should  attempt  it 
for  himself.  (1)  Our  Lord  ascends  the  mountain  to  pray,  as 
Luke  informs  us,  ix.  28,  attended  by  Peter,  James,  and  John ; 
(2)  while  in  the  act  of  prayer,  his  person  is  transfigured,  or,  as 
Luke  expresses  it,  the  appearance  of  his  face  was  altered  or 
became  (extpov,  another)  changed.  His  face  shone  as  the  sun. 
His  garments  became  white  as  light  (Matt.) — [white  exceed- 
ingly as  snow,  shining,  such  as  no  fuller  could  make  them 
(Mark) — white  and  glistering  (Luke)].  In  the  meantime,  Peter, 
James,  and  John,  had  become  heavy  with  sleep,  and  probably 
did  not  witness  the  change  at  its  commencement.  (3)  Moses 
and  Elias  then  appear  in  glory.  (4)  The  disciples  awaking, 
Luke  ix.  32,  perceive  the  change  m  the  Lord's  person ; — they 
perceive,  also,  the  presence  of  Moses  and  Elias  in  glorified 
forms.  (5)  The  disciples  hear  the  conversation  of  the  Lord 
with  Moses  and  Elias  about  his  approaching  [i^odovy  Luke 


THE   TRANSFIGURATION.  171 

ix.  31)  exodus  from  his  state  of  humiliation  at  Jerusalem. 
(6)  The  conversation  ceases,  and  Moses  and  Elias  are  in  the  act 
■  of  departing.  (7)  Peter  perceiving  it,  as  we  may  suppose,  makes 
the  most  extraordinary  display  of  his  character  on  record.  He 
ventures  to  speak,  as  if  unawed  by  the  presence  of  such  glorious 
and  majestic  forms.  (8)  Before  Peter  had  done  speaking,  a 
cloud  (probably  the  Shekinah)  suddenly  overshadowed  them. 
Matthew  calls  it  a  light  or  bright  cloud.  According  to  some 
readings,  it  was  a  cloud  of  light.  (9)  Meantime  (that  is,  while 
Peter  was  speaking)  Moses  and  Elias  disappear,  so  that  the 
presence  of  the  cloud  succeeded  the  presence  of  Moses  and 
Elias.  (10)  As  the  cloud  enveloped  the  disciples,  they  were 
filled  with  fear.  Luke  ix.  34.  (11)  Instantly  the  voice  of  the 
Father  issues  from  the  cloud,  "  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  hear 
ye  him."  See  notes  on  Matt.  iii.  17.  As  Moses  and  Elias  had 
previously  departed,  the  disciples  could  not  doubt  that  the 
meaning  of  the  voice  was  to  be  applied  to  Jesus.  (12)  Hear- 
ing the  voice,  the  disciples  fell  on  their  faces.  Matt.  xvii.  6. 

(13)  While  they  thus  lay  prostrate,  the  cloud  also  disappears; 

(14)  and  with  the  departure  of  the  cloud,  Jesus,  by  an  act  of  his 
pwn  power,  as  we   suppose,  resumed  his  former  appearance. 

(15)  Going  then  to  his  disciples,  he  touched  them,  bid  them 
rise  and  not  fear.  (16)  Then  they  arose,  and  looking  round 
(perhaps  to  see  again  those  glorious  forms,  Mark  ix.  8)  they 
perceived  that  Moses  and  Elias  had  departed,  that  the  cloud 
had  disappeared,  that  Jesus  was  no  longer  transfigured,  but 
the  same  as  when  he  ascended  the  mountain  with  them  and 
began  to  pray. 

Thus,  a  succession  of  testimonies  to  the  mystery  of  our 
Lord's  person  was  furnished  by  this  most  wonderful  transaction. 
The  transfiguration  of  his  person  into  the  appearance  of  such 
majesty,  was  of  itself  an  overpowering  testimony  to  his  glory 
as  the  Son  of  Man.  Then  the  appearing  of  Moses  and 
Elias,  and  their  conversing  with  him  about  his  decease  or 
transition  from  humiliation  to  his  former  glory,  was  another 
amazing  testimony  to  the  glory  of  his  nature,  as  the  Son  of 
Man.  Having  accomplished  the  object  of  their  mission, 
nothing  remained  to  detain  them  longer,  and  they  departed. 
The  crowning  testimony  of  all  followed : — it  was  the  testimony 
of  the  Father  himself.  In  order  to  this,  the  mysterious  cloud 
appears,  as  soon  as  Moses  and  Elias  disappear,  and  while  Jesus 
with  the  three  disciples  only,  were  within  it,  the  voice  is 
uttered,  "  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased. 
Hear  ye  him."  No  greater  testimony  than  this  could  be 
given.  Then  the  cloud  also  disappears,  and  the  transfiguration 
is  passed. 


172  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

Many  questions  are  suggested  by  this  wonderful  transaction, 
but  we  must  not  too  curiously  inquire  into  a  matter  so  pro- 
foundly mysterious.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  there  were 
reasons  for  ordering  the  whole  scene  exactly  in  the  way  it 
occurred,  although  we  should  not  be  able  to  discover  them.  We 
may  safely  believe,  however,  that  none  are  so  probable  as  those 
which  tend  most  to  exalt  the  majesty  and  glory  of  the  manhood 
of  our  blessed  Lord.  As  to  the  transfiguration  itself,  we  are 
inclined  to  regard  it  as  a  temporary  display  or  revealing  of  the 
concealed  glory  of  his  person ;  or,  as  an  outward  manifestation 
or  uncovering,  for  a  little  space,  of  the  inherent  glory  of  his 
manhood.     John  xvii.  5.     See  notes  on  Matt.  xiv.  22 — 33. 

We  call  the  transfiguration  a  miracle,  an(J  such  it  was.  But 
his  return  from  his  transfigured,  or  glorified,  to  his  inglorious 
form,  is  not  commonly  regarded  in  the  same  light.  Yet,  if  we 
consider  the  essentially  inherent  glory  of  our  Lord's  person,  it 
was,  perhaps,  a  greater  miracle  to  conceal  it  under  the  humble 
veil  of  his  flesh,  and  keep  it  concealed,  except  so  far  as  his 
miracles  occasionally  displayed  it,  from  his  incarnation  to  his 
resurrection,  than  to  uncover  or  reveal  it,  as  he  did  on  the 
occasion  which  we  are  considering.  We  add  a  few  observations 
upon  some  parts  of  this  narrative. 

Luke  ix.  29.  "And  as  he  prayed,"  &c. 

The  Evangelist  does  not  mention  the  subject  of  his  prayer, 
but  as  he  ascended  the  mountain  to  make  this  display  of  his 
glory,  we  may  reasonably  conclude  that  his  prayer  had  respect 
to  it.  If  this  supposition  be  admitted,  it  would  follow  that  his 
prayer  was  the  appointed  means  for  that  end,  and  as  faith  or 
implicit  trust  in  God  is  the  life  and  energy  of  prayer,  we  may 
conclude  that  the  transfiguration  of  the  human  person  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  was  wrought  through  that  means.  See  John  xvii.  5. 
Our  Lord's  faith,  as  a  man,  was  perfect.  It  took  hold  of  God, 
and  drew  from  God  whatsoever  he  asked,  John  xi.  41,  42,  being 
always  agreeable  to  the  Divine  will.  Matt.  xxvi.  53,  54. 

Luke  ix.  30.  "And  behold  there  talked  with  him  two  men, 
which  were  Moses  and  Elias,  who,  appearing  in  glory,  spake 
of  his  decease  [e^ro^ov,]  which  he  should  accomplish  [7T?.yjpouu^ 
at  Jerusalem." 

The  Evangelist  is  very  explicit.  Two  men,  not  angels, 
appeared,  and  these  men  were  Moses  and  Elias.  It  was  not, 
then,  a  scenic  representation  merely,  but  the  real  appearing  of 
two  departed  saints,  in  forms  of  glory,  sent  to  earth  from  the 
heavenly  world  expressly  to  hold  this  interview  with  the 
Saviour.  They  talked  with  him  in  audible,  intelligible  words, 
which  the  three  apostles  heard  and  understood.  The  subject  of 
their  discourse  was  the  same  our  Lord  had,  for  the  first  time, 


THE   TRANSFIGURATION.  173 

broached  to  his  disciples  a  week  before,  namely,  his  sufferings 
and  death  at  Jerusalem.  Moses  and  Elias  knew  the  purpose 
of  the  Lord's  humiliation,  and  the  place  of  its  termination  or 
accomplishment.  They  spoke  of  his  decease  (decession,  de- 
cessus,  i^odou,)  or  departure,  at  Jerusalem.  The  identity  of 
the  subject  confirms  the  interpretation  of  the  promise  before 
suggested.  Matt.  xvi.  28.  It  is  as  though  our  Lord  had  assumed 
temporarily  his  glory,  to  repeat,  in  Peter's  hearing,  the  very 
things  at  which  that  apostle  had  revolted,  in  order  to  show  him 
how  differently  these  saints  regarded  them. 

However  this  may  be,  we  may  regard  our  Lord's  brief  inter- 
course with  these  departed  saints,  as  a  type,  or  exhibition  on  a 
small  scale,  of  the  society  and  intercourse  between  him  and  his 
redeemed  in  his  kingdom.  In  this  sense,  it  was  a  fulfilment  of 
his  promise;  for  it  was  an  open  manifestation  of  himself, 
as  Son  of  Man,  in  the  glory  with  which  he  will  appear  in  his 
kingdom. 

Matt.  xvii.  4.  "Then  answered  Peter  and  said.  Lord,  it  is 
good  for  us  to  be  here.  If  thou  wilt,  let  us  make  three  taber- 
nacles :  one  for  thee,  and  one  for  Moses,  and  one  for  Elias." 

Peter  evidently  regarded  his  Master  as  the  greater  of  the 
three  glorious  persons  before  him.  Whether  his  glory  sur- 
passed that  of  the  others,  or  whether  the  manner  of  their 
address  and  demeanour  convinced  him  of  it,  we  are  not  in- 
formed. Nor  are  we  told  how  he  could  know  one  departed 
saint  from  another.  The  fact  only  is  recorded,  and  it  seems  to 
argue  either  that  the  apostles  were,  for  the  occasion,  gifted  with 
new  powers  of  discernment,  or  that  these  saints  made  them- 
selves known  to  the  apostles  by  some  extraordinary  power 
which  they  possessed.  1  Cor.  xiii.  12.  But  ^the  transaction  is 
too  mysterious  to  be  reasoned  about.  It  belongs  to  the  invi- 
sible world,  or  rather  to  the  times  of  the  kingdom  yet  to 
be  revealed. 

We  cannot  leave  this  passage  without  calling  the  reader's 
attention  again,  for  a  moment  to  the  character  of  the  apostle. 
He  was  in  a  scene  of  unearthly  glory.  Before  him  stood  the 
Son  of  Man,  attended  by  the  greatest  of  the  prophets,  and  all 
three  attired  with  the  splendour  of  the  heavenly  world.  Who 
but  Peter  would  dare  to  utter  a  voice  or  mingle  his  words  with 
theirs  in  such  a  scene  !  It  is  obvious  to  remark  that  he  neither 
appreciated  the  nature  nor  the  object  of  the  transaction,  nor  the 
character  nor  condition  of  the  persons  before  him.  Evidently 
he  was  awe-struck  and  bewildered.  Luke  ix.  33 ;  Mark  ix.  6. 
In  that  there  is  no  marvel.  The  marvel  is  that  he  should  speak 
at  all.  The  character  of  Peter,  in  this  respect,  is  unique.  No 
such  record  as  this  is  made  of  any  other  man. 


174  '    NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

One  observation  more  upon  the  whole  of  this  passage,  Matt. 
xvii.  1 — 8,  and  the  instruction  it  was  intended  to  convey.  We 
have  eye-witnesses  of  the  sufferings  and  death  of  the  Lord 
Jesus ;  eye-witnesses  of  his  person  after  his  resurrection ;  eye- 
witnesses of  his  ascension ;  and  eye-witnesses  of  his  glorified 
person,  and  of  the  manner  of  his  intercourse  with  the  saints  in 
glory ;  but  not  in  this  order :  for  the  Divine  purpose  did  not 
permit  of  the  Lord's  return  to  the  earth  after  his  final  ascen- 
sion, until  he  should  come  in  his  kingdom.  Acts  iii.  21.  Hence 
he  appeared  in  his  glory  for  a  little  space,  during  the  period  of 
his  humiliation,  and  two  of  the  most  eminent  saints  of  the 
former  dispensation  were  sent  to  hold  converse  with  him,  in 
the  presence  of  three  of  his  disciples,  in  order  that  the  Church 
might  have,  through  their  testimony,  out  of  order  and  before 
the  appointed  time,  an  example  or  outward  manifestation  of 
the  kingdom,  and  of  the  hope  to  which  his  elect  people  are 
called.  In  this  view  of  the  transfiguration,  it  was  a  most 
gracious  provision  for  the  comfort  and  encouragement  of  the 
Church  in  her  pilgrimage  through  this  world.  See  Heb.  xii.  2, 
22,  23 ;  xiii.  13,  14 ;  1  Pet.  i.  10—18.  For  by  thus  teaching 
the  mystery  of  our  Lord's  glorification  in  connection  with  the 
mystery  of  his  death,  it  marvellously  joined  the  sufi'erings  of 
the  cross  with  the  kingdom  and  the  crown. 

Matt.  xvii.  9.  "  And  as  they  came  down  from  the  moun- 
tain, Jesus  charged  them,  saying,  Tell  the  vision  [what  things 
they  had  seen,  Mark  ix.  9]  to  no  man,  until  the  Son  of  Man  be 
risen  [again]  from  the  dead." 

From  this  verse  we  infer  that  the  instruction  to  be  derived 
from  the  transfiguration  was  designed  for  the  Church.  No 
purpose  connecteijr;  with  our  Lord's  personal  ministry  among 
the  Jews  was  to  be  served  by  it.  We  may  observe  also  that 
the  Lord's  resurrection  from  the  dead  was  the  epoch,  very 
nearly,  of  his  entering  permanently  into  his  glory,  Luke 
xxiv.  26,  so  that  the  injunction  in  effect  was,  not  to  speak  of 
this  temporary  glorification  of  the  Lord's  person  so  long  as  he 
continued  in  his  state  of  humiliation,  nor  until  he  was  ready  to 
pour  out  the  spirit  of  glory  upon  his  followers.*     We  have  no 

*  The  author  of  an  interesting  little  treatise,  lately  published  by  the  Pres- 
byterian Board  of  Publication,  entitled,  "The  Last  Days  of  Jesus,"  supposes 
the  mountain  in  Galilee,  mentioned  in  Matt,  xxviii.  16,  was  the  mountain  on 
which  the  Lord  was  transfigured,  and  that  the  appearance  in  Galilee  "was  a 
substantial  reproduction  of  the  transfiguration  scene."  In  this  way  he  accounts 
for  the  two  opposite  effects  produced:  "  some  worshipped  and  some  doubted." 
In  this  conjecture,  we  think,  the  author  mistakes  the  object  of  the  Saviour's 
appearance  after  his  resurrection,  which  was  to  establish  the  reality  of 
the  fact  of  the  resurrection  of  the  very  body  of  flesh  which  was  crucified, 


THE    TRANSFIGURATION.  175 

evidence  that  the  disciples  revealed  the  secret  until  after  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  but  one  use  they  then  made  of  it  may  be 
learned  from  the  second  epistle  of  Peter,  the  leading  doctrine 
of  which  is  the  second  coming  of  the  Lord. 

Both  the  vision,  or  what  they  had  just  seen,  and  the  rising 
from  the  dead,  are  here  predicated  of  the  Son  of  Man.  It  was 
the  glory  of  his  manhood  which  they  had  seen  in  the  transfigura- 
tion, and  it  was  as  Son  of  Man  that  he  was  to  rise  from  the 
dead  and  ascend  into  heaven,  John  vi.  62,  and  thereupon  to 
enter  permanently  into  the  glory  in  which  they  had  just  seen 
him.  The  prohibition  amounts  to  this:  that  the  disciples  were 
not  to  speak  of  this  temporary  glorification  of  the  Son  of  Man, 
so  long  as  he  should  continue  in  his  state  of  humiliation.  Why 
this  injunction  was  made,  we  can  only  conjecture.  But  the 
injunction  itself  proves  that  no  use  could  be  made  of  the  vision, 
consistently  with  the  Divine  plan,  during  our  Lord's  personal 
ministry  among  the  Jews ;  and  the  implied  permission  to  speak 
of  it  after  his  resurrection,  shows  that  the  instruction  it  con- 
veyed was  intended  for  the  Church.  It  is  not  probable  that  the 
three  disciples  at  that  time  understood  either  the  motives  for 
secresy,  or  when,  or  by  what  means,  they  would  be  absolved 
from  it.  For  Mark,  ix.  10,  observes  that,  though  they  kept  it 
faithfully  among  themselves,  they  did  not  so  much  as  under- 
stand what  the  rising  of  the  Son  of  Man  from  the  dead  could 
mean.    See  John  xx.  9. 

and  for  that  purpose  alone  St.  Paul  uses  it,  1  Cor.  xv.  5,  6,  the  evidence  of 
■which  would  be  impaired  by  transfiguration.  Besides  it  seems  impossible  that 
St.  Peter  would  refer  to  the  transfiguration  in  the  special  manner  he  does, 
2  Pet.  i.  16 — 18,  if  the  same  transactioa  had  been  repeated  afterwards  in  the 
presence  of  the  whole  body  of  (or  more  than  five  hundred  of)  the  disciples. 
If  the  Lord  had  been  twice  transfigured,  there  would  be  the  same  reason  for 
recording  both,  and  we  cannot  give  any  reason  why  the  last  should  be  myste- 
riously concealed,  and  the  first  be  circumstantially  recorded.  It  may  be  suffi- 
cient to  say,  however,  that  this  opinion  or  conjecture  is  without  evidence,  and 
the  estimable  author  referred  to,  it  may  be  presumed,  regarded  it  in  that 
light. 


176  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 


CHAPTER   V. 

The  coming  of  Elias. — Casting  out  Demons. — The  Apostles'  want  of  Faith  for 
Miracles. — The  Faith  for  working  Miracles. — Jesus  as  Son  of  Man  and  as 
Christ. — Jesus  as  Son  of  Man  and  as  Messiah. — Christ's  Kingdom  as  Mes- 
siah.— Christ's  paying  Tribute — The  Apostles  ask,  Who  shall  be  greatest? — 
Those  like  little  Children  to  be  greatest. — Little  Children  saved. — The  Son  of 
Man  came  to  save  the  Lost. — Contending  Brethren  to  be  Reconciled. — Sense 
of  the  word  Church. — Binding  and  Loosing. — The  Discipline  of  the  Church. — 
The  Regeneration, — The  New  Heavens  and  the  New  Earth. — The  Apostles  to 
sit  on  Thrones. — All  Believers  to  receive  Rewards. — Christ  foretells  his  Cruci- 
fixion. 

Matthew  xvii.  10.    "And  his   disciples  asked  him,  saying, 
Why  then  say  the  Scribes,  that  Elias  must  first  come?" 

This  verse  should  be  read,  or  at  least  be  interpreted,  with  the 
8th  verse.  Thus :  "And  when  they  had  lifted  up  their  eyes, 
they  saw  no  man,  save  Jesus  only.  And  his  disciples  asked 
him,  saying,  Why  then  say  the  Scribes  that  Elias  must  first 
come?"  This  question  was  suggested  by  the  disappearance  of 
Elias,  and  it  implies  a  doubt  whether  the  doctrine  of  the  Scribes 
was  true.  The  disciples  knew  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah.  The 
transfiguration  proved  it  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  doubt. 
Elias  had  just  appeared  to  Jesus,  but  he  had  departed,  and 
Jesus  was  now  returning  to  his  ministry  among  the  people. 
Besides,  if  this  brief  appearance  of  Elias  could  be  considered 
the  "coming"  taught  by  the  Scribes,  still  Elias  did  not  come 
first.  How  then  could  the  doctrine  of  the  Scribes  be  true? 
Such  was  the  reasoning,  as  we  suppose,  suggested  by  the 
vision. 

The  reply  of  our  Lord  to  the  question,  confirmed  this  doc- 
trine of  the  Scribes,  and  at  the  same  time  vindicated  his  title 
to  the  Messiahship. 

Matt.  xvii.  11.  "And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them, 
Elias  truly  cometh  first,  [as  the  Scribes  say,]  and  [when  he 
shall  come]  he  will  restore  all  things." 

As  if  he  had  said:  "Nothing  that  you  have  seen  or  heard 
contradicts,  or  conflicts  with  this  doctrine  of  the  Scribes.  For, 
at  the  coming  of  which  they  speak,  Elias  will  really  appear  to 
this  people,  and  restore  all  things  to  their  former  state;  and 
this  is  a  note  or  mark  by  which  the  coming  of  Elias,  foretold  by 
the  prophets,  may  be  certainly  known.  The  coming  of  Elias  at 
my  transfiguration  was  designed  for  an  altogether  different  pur- 
pose. It  was  not  foretold  by  any  prophet,  nor  have  the  Scribes 
any  idea  of  the  coming  of  Elias,  which  you  have  seen.  Nor 
must  you  even  speak  of  it  to  them,  or  to  any  other  person,  until 
after  my  ministry  to  this  people  shall  be  ended." 


THE    COMING   OF   ELIAS.  177 

This  part  of  our  Lord's  answer,  then,  had  respect  to  the 
futurity  of  the  nation,  and  by  it  he  taught  the  disciples  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  Scribes,  so  considered,  was  true.  They  had 
visible  evidence  that  all  things  had  not  been  restored,  and,  con- 
sequently, that  the  appearing  and  departing  of  Elias,  which 
•they  had  witnessed,  without  so  much  as  showing  himself  to  the 
people,  nor  to  them  except  for  a  few  moments,  could  not  be 
the  coming  of  Elias  taught  by  the  Scribes.  But,  if  our  Lord 
had  concluded  his  answer  with  these  words,  the  perplexity  of 
the  disciples  would  have  been  increased;  for,  how  then  could 
he  be  the  Messiah,  if  the  doctrine  of  the  Scribes  were  true, 
seeing  that  Elias  had  not  yet  appeared  and  restored  all  things? 
Would  not  the  Lord's  answer  have  been  equivalent  to  a  confes- 
sion that  he  was  not  the  Messiah,  although  the  vision  proved 
that  he  was,  and  the  voice  of  the  Father  commanded  them  to 
obey  him  as  such  ? 

To  anticipate  any  doubt  which  might  arise  from  a  simple  con- 
firmation of  the  doctrine  of  the  Scribes,  he  added: 

Matt.  xvii.  12.  "But  I  say  unto  you,  that  Elias  is  come 
already  and  they  knew  him  not,  but  have  done  unto  him  what- 
soever they  listed." 

By  these  words  our  Lord  vindicates  his  Messiahship,  and 
reconciles  the  teachings  of  the  vision  with  the  doctrine  of  the 
Scribes.  Elias  had  come  in  person,  but  not  to  restore  all  things. 
Yet  why  should  he  come  for  any  purpose,  if  Jesus  were  not  the 
Messiah  ?  Of  this  coming  of  Elias,  the  Scribes  neither  knew 
nor  taught  anything.  Further:  John  the  Baptist  had  so  far 
fulfilled  the  office  of  Elias  as  to  vindicate  his  title  to  the  Mes- 
siahship, and  that,  too,  consistently  with  the  sense  of  these 
Scriptures  from  which  the  Scribes  derived  their  doctrine.  Isaiah 
xl.  3;  Mai.  iii.  1. 

Yet  John  did  not  restore  all  things.  His  ministry  was  not 
only  unsuccessful,  but  he  suffered  at  their  hands.  How  then 
could  John  be  the  Elias  who  shall  restore  all  things  at  his  com- 
ing? The  disciples  must  have  felt  that  something  was  wanting 
to  make  the  explanation  complete ;  but  they  acquiesced  in  it  as 
satisfactory  upon  the  ground  of  the  vision  and  the  authority  of 
their  Master;  for  he  did  not  enter  into  any  elucidation  of  his 
meaning,  much  less  explain  how  it  could  be  that  Elias  was  yet 
to  come  and  restore  all  things,  and  yet  had  already  come  and 
been  rejected  and  put  to  death  by  the  nation. 

The  truth  is,  the  disciples  were  unable,  at  that  time,  to  com- 
prehend the  explanation  of  the  matter.  They  could  not  believe, 
or  even  conceive,  that  the  Messiah  would  be  rejected  and  put  to 
death.  Matt.  xvi.  22;  Mark  ix.  32;  Luke  ix.  45;  xviii.  34. 
They  knew  not  what  he  meant  by  the  saying,  "  till  the  Son  of 
23 


178  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

Man  be  risen  from  the  dead."  Mark  ix.  10;  John  xx.  9.  Con- 
sequently they  thought  of  the  Lord's  advent  at  that  time  as 
his  successful  and  only  advent.  Could  they  have  conceived  of 
two  advents  of  the  Messiah — the  first  to  suffer,  and  the  second 
to  reign — the  solution  of  any  doubt  arising  from  the  Lord's 
answer,  would  have  been  easy. "  It  would  have  been  obvious  to 
conclude  that  each  advent  might,  in  the  Divine  purpose,  require 
a  harbinger ;  and  thus  the  doctrine  of  the  Scribes  concerning 
the  future  coming  and  successful  ministry  of  Elias,  would  be 
consistent  with  the  divine  mission  of  John  and  the  Messiahship 
of  our  Lord.  It  is  proper  to  add,  that  the  prophecies  concern- 
ing John  the  Baptist  and  Elias,  Isa.  xl.  3;  Mai.  iii.  1;  iv.  5,  6, 
are  couched  in  such  terms  that  they  may  be  applied  to  one  or 
two  forerunners;  or,  in  other  words,  so  that  John  might  be 
concealed,  if  we  may  so  express  it,  under  the  drapery  of  Elias. 
Certain  it  is,  our  Lord  did  not  say  John  was  really  Elias,  (juxta 
fidem  corporis,  to  use  Jerome's  words;)  but,  that  he  fulfilled  the 
office  of  Elias  at  that  time,  and  in  that  sense  might  be  called 
Elias,  as  has  already  been  shown  in  the  preceding  notes.  See 
notes  on  John  i.  22,  23;  Matt.  iii.  1,  3;  xi.  2—15. 

Matt.  xvii.  12.  "  Likewise  shall  also  the  Son  of  Man  suffer 
of  them." 

By  these  words  our  Lord  again  foretells  his  rejection  by  the 
nation,  linking  the  issue  of  his  own  ministry  with  that  of  John's. 
Mark,  ix.  13,  represents  him  as  saying  that  John's  sufferings 
were  predicted  by  the  prophets.  But  by  which  of  them,  and 
where  ?  This  is  considered  by  some  commentators  a  point  of 
difficulty.  Some  have  resorted  to  the  expedient  of  transposing 
the  words  "as  it  is  written  of  him,"  in  the  end  of  the  13th 
verse,  so  as  to  make  them  the  third  clause.  "But  I  say  unto 
you,  that  Elias  is  indeed  come,  as  it  is  ivritten  of  him,  and  they 
have  done  unto  him  whatsoever  they  listed."  See  Whithy  and 
Scott.  But  there  is  no  ancient  version  or  MS.  which  justifies 
the  transposition.  Euthymius  says  that  Isaiah  predicted  the 
sufferings  of  John,  but  he  does  not  cite  the  place.  In  the  mar- 
gin, the  49th  chapter  of  Isaiah  is  referred  to,  but  Jansenius 
[Harmony,  502,  Col.  2)  found  nothing  in  that  chapter  which  he 
could  so  interpret.* 

*  According  to  some  MSS.,  and  the  Vulgate  and  Syriac  versions,  the  12th 
verse  of  Mark  ix.  should  be  read  thus :  "  Elias  verily  cometh  first  and  restoreth 
all  things,  and  [as  it  has  been  wriiicn,  Kctbeec  yir)pa.7rrtu,  of  the  Son  of  Man)  that 
he  may  sufler  many  things  and  be  set  at  nought;"  that  is,  kuBui;  is  read  instead 
of  3-aic,  and  the  whole  phrase  may  then  be  read  parenthetically.  See  Gries- 
bach,  Knappius,  Mill,  Beausobre  and  L'Enfant's  version.  Adopting  this  read- 
ing, the  verse  may  be  paraphrased  thus:  "And  he  answered  and  told  them, 
Elias  indeed  cometh  before  the  Christ,  as  the  Scribes  teach ;  and  at  his  coming 
he  will  restore  all  things.  But  Elias  cometh  also  that  he  may  suffer,  and  be 
set  at  nought,  as  it  has  been  written  (xafiai;  yryjiaTrrou)  of  the  Son  of  Man.     This 


THE    COMING   OF   ELIAS.  179 

The  true  explanation  appears  to  be,  that  the  person  and 
ministry  of  our  blessed  Lord  were  so  bound  together  in  the  Di- 
vine purpose,  with  the  person  and  ministry  of  John,  so  far  as 
they  respected  that  people  at  that  time,  in  their  national  capa- 
city, that  whatsoever  was  written  expressly  of  the  rejection  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  as  the  Messiah,  was  virtually  written  of  John 
as  hisc herald;  and  hence  it  is  that  our  Lord,  in  this  passage, 
Mark  ix.  13,  combined  and  compared,  in  the  same  breath,  John's 
rejection  and  suifering  with  his  own ;  alleging,  as  he  did,  that 
such  was  the  sense  of  the  prophecies.  See  the  notes  on  Matt, 
xi.  2—15;  iii.  3;  Luke  iii.  20,  21. 

Matt.  xvii.  11.     "And  restore  all  things." 

At  the  time  our  Lord  addressed  these  words  to  the  three 
apostles,  the  things  to  be  restored  or  the  desolations  to  be 
repaired  did  not  appear.  The  Jewish  Commonwealth  was  still 
in  existence;  the  country  and  cities,  though  subject  to  the 
Roman  power,  were  flourishing.  The  Levitical  worship  was 
observed;  they  had  their  gorgeous  temple,  their  synagogues, 
their  teachers,  and  rulers.  Their  State  was  yet  to  become  one 
vast  ruin.  The  people  were  yet  to  be  scattered  among  all 
nations,  as  the  necessary  consequence  in  the  Divine  plan  of  the 
smiting  of  their  true  Shepherd,  Matt.  xxvi.  31,  and  be  sub- 
jected to  a  long  and  galling  captivity,  during  which  great  diver- 
sities would  be  wrought  in  their  character.*  From  this  dis- 
persion they  were  to  be  restored  and  reconstituted  into  a  Com- 
monwealth again,  before  the  work  of  Elias  could  begin.  Both 
Peter  (Acts  iii.  21)  and  James  (Acts  xv.  16,)  after  they  received 

the  Scribes  do  not  teach,  for  they  do  not  understand  the  prophecies  they  under- 
take to  explain.  Moreover  I  say  unto  you  that  Elias  has  indeed  already  come, 
and  they  knew  him  not,  and  what  they  listed,  that  they  did  to  him;  as  it  is 
virtually  written  of  him  in  the  prophecies  concerning  the  Messiah.  In  like 
manner,  the  Son  of  Man  is  about  to  suffer  by  their  hands." 

These  last  words  pointed  so  plainly  to  John  the  Baptist,  that  our  Lord's 
allusion  could  not  be  mistaken.  Matt.  xvii.  13.  Still,  the  mystery  was  not 
cleared  up  to  the  apprehension  of  the  apostles,  for  the  reasons  suggested 
above;  for  they  were  not  at  that  time  capable  of  understanding  how  much  was 
involved  in  "the  restitution  of  all  things,"  nor  the  means  through  which  so  great 
an  event  was  to  be  accomplished. 

*  It  is  plain  from  the  question  the  disciples  put  to  the  Lord  at  his  last 
interview  with  them,  "Lord,  wilt  thou  at  this  time  restore  the  kingdom  to 
Israel?"  Acts  i.  6,  they  had  no  idea  that  the  Roman  power  was  yet  to  be  exerted 
to  the  utter  ruin  of  their  Commonwealth,  and  bring  them  into  a  captivity, 
which  was  to  endure  more  than  twenty-five  times  longer  than  their  captivity 
under  the  kings  of  the  ancient  Babylon  ;  and  it  maybe  observed  that  the  Jews 
in  general  so  construed  their  Scriptures  that  they  saw  predicted  in  them  but 
one  captivity  under  one  Babylon — but  one  return  from  Babylon — one  advent  of 
Elias — one  advent  of  Messiah,  and  that  his  advent  of  glory  and  power  in  his 
kingdom.  Whereas,  in  fact,  two  oppressing  Babylons  were  foretold,  and  two 
returns  from  captivity,  two  advents  of  Elias,  and  two  advents  of  Messiah ;  yet 
but  one  kingdom. 


180  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

the  gift  of  inspiration,  refer  to  this  restitution  in  which  Elias 
is  to  perform  a  part,  as  future.  The  apostle  James  represents 
it,  on  the  authority  of.  the  prophecy  of  Amos,  ix.  11,  12,  as 
following  the  work  of  taking  out  of  the  Gentiles  an  elect  peo- 
ple for  Christ,  Acts  xv.  16 ;  that  is,  the  present  dispensation 
of  the  Gospel  among  the  Gentiles  for  the  gathering  and  com- 
pletion of  the  Church. 

But  we  suppose,  and  so  understand  the  apostle,  that  the  pro- 
phecy of  Amos  has  respect  rather  to  the  spiritual  upbuilding 
of  Israel,  than  to  the  rebuilding  of  their  wasted  cities  and  the 
reconstruction  of  their  political  or  national  State.  The  restora- 
tion of  Israel  to  their  land,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  is  to 
be  brought  about  by  other  means  than  the  ministry  of  Elias. 
Isa.  Ixi.  4;  Deut.  xxviii.  49 — fc)6;  xxx.  1 — 6;  Isa.  xi. ;  xlix. 
22,  23;  Ix.;  Ixi.  4 — 7;  Jer.  xxxiii.  5 — 8;  xxxi.;  Ezek.  xxxiv., 
xxxvi.,  xxxvii.,  xxxviii.,  xxxix. ;  Hos.  iii.  4,  5;  and  many 
other  places.  Elias  will  not,  as  we  conceive,  have  anything  to 
do  in  the  preparatory  work  of  their  political  restoration.  At 
his  coming,  he  will  find  Israel,  to  a  considerable  extent,  though 
perhaps  not  wholly,  restored  to  their  land,  their  cities  rebuilt, 
and  their  State  reconstructed,  and  the  people  endeavouring, 
perhaps,  to  worship  God  according  to  the  law  of  Moses.  In 
these  circumstances  we  can  conceive  there  will  be  occasion  for 
the  ministry  of  some  great  prophet,  to  be  attended  with  greater 
power  than  John's  was.  Mai.  iv.  5,  6. 

The  question  concerning  the  future  mission  of  Elias  seems, 
therefore,  to  be  intimately,  if  not  inseparably,  connected  with 
the  restoration  of  Israel  to  the  land  God  gave  to  Abraham. 
If  the  Scriptures  teach  that  Israel  will  be  thus  restored,  we 
can  perceive  no  reason  why  God  should  not  send  them  a 
prophet  after  their  restoration,  endued  with  powers  which  shall 
insure,  Mai.  iv.  5,  6,  the  success  of  his  ministry.  And  if  he 
sent  Elias  in  any  sense  before  our  Lord  entered  on  his  ministry 
of  humiliation,  why  should  he  not  send  Elias  (or  an  Elias)  to 
them  after  their  restoration  ?  There  appears  to  be  no  more 
reason  for  understanding  the  Scriptures  relating  to  the  future 
coming  of  Elias  figuratively,  than  there  is  of  understanding  the 
prophecies  relating  to  the  restoration  of  Israel  figuratively. 
Yet  many  persons  are  ready  to  admit  the  latter  who  deny  the 
former.  But  if  the  prophecies  concerning  their  restoration 
signify  nothing  more  than  their  conversion  to  the  Gospel,  and 
their  being  gathered  into  Christian  Churches  in  the  lands  where 
they  now  dwell,  the  principles  of  interpretation  by  which  we 
reach  such  a  conclusion,  would  justify  us  in  understanding  the 
prophecy  concerning  the  sending  of  Elijah,  Mai.  iv.  5,  6,  as 
meaning  nothing  more  or  different  from  the  outpouring  of  the 


THE    COMING   OF   ELIAS.  181 

Holy  Spirit  upon  that  people  in  their  dispersed  and  dissociate 
condition.  What  need  would  there  then  be  of  the  coming  of 
Elias  in  person  ?  What  would  be  the  use  of  his  ministry  ? 
What  would  he  have  to  restore  ?  Where  would  he  appear  ? 
Where  would  he  find  all  Israel  ?  The  field  of  his  mission  would 
b6  the  world.  Again:  Would  he  find  the  people  converted? 
If  so,  why  need  Elias  be  sent  to  them  in  person  ?  Would  he 
find  them  unconverted  ?  It  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
convert  men  during  this  dispensation  by  means  of  the  gospel 
ministry.  Why  then  should  Elias  be  sent  with  the  power  of 
the  same  Spirit  to  supersede  the  ordinary  ministry  of  preach- 
ing and  the  appointed  means  of  grace?  Such  are  the  specu- 
lative questions  suggested  by  the  spiritualizing  scheme  of 
interpretation. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  Ave  adopt  the  conclusion  that  Israel 
will  be  restored  to  their  land,  at  the  termination  of  this  dis- 
pensation of  the  Gospel  and  the  proximate  coming  of  the  Son 
of  Man,  none  of  these  questions  can  arise.  For,  entertaining 
this  view,  we  should  expect  to  see  the  wasted  cities  of  Israel 
literally  rebuilt — their  now  empty  land  actually  filled  with 
people — its  vales,  and  hills,  and  mountains  cultivated  again, 
and  places  for  the  worship  of  God  erected.  In  one  word,  we 
can  admit,  without  hesitation,  that  all  the  prophecies  relating 
to  what  that  people  will  be  and  do,  or  to  what  God  will  do  for 
them  (including  even  this  prophecy  of  sending  Elijah  to  them,) 
will  be  literally  and  punctually  fulfilled.  And  as  they  have 
respect  to  a  future  dispensation  of  God's  government  over  the 
world,  it  does  not  concern  us  of  the  Gentiles  now  to  contend  for 
a  spiritual  interpretation  of  them,  as  though  they  concerned 
the  Christian  Church,  any  more  than  it  concerned  the  Jews  of 
our  Lord's  day  to  know  what  God  would  do  for  or  with  the 
Gentiles  after  the  Levitical  dispensation  expired.  The  fact 
that  many  Christian  writers  have  done  so,  has  been  the  occa- 
sion of  throwing  obscurity  on  other  points  of  practical  concern 
and  even  of  serious  error.  Indeed,  it  is  not  possible,  as  we 
conceive,  to  reach  such  a  result  except  by  principles  and  modes 
of  reasoning  which  leave  no  fact  secure  from  cavil,  no  doctrine 
from  perversion,  no  part  of  the  Bible  safe  from  the  attacks  of 
neologians  and  infidels. 

Matt.  xvii.  14—21.    (Mark  ix.  14—27  ;  Luke  ix.  37—42.) 

Verse  16.  "  And  I  brought  him  to  thy  disciples,  and  they 
could  not  cure  him." 

Yet  the  Lord  had  given  these  disciples  power  over  unclean 
spirits  without  exception,  to  cast  them  out;  and  power  to  heal 
all  manner  of  sickness  and  all  manner  of  disease.  Matt.  x.  1,  8. 
Why,  then,  could  they  not  cast  out  the  unclean  spirit  on  this 


182  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

occasion;  they  had  exerted  the  power  successfully  before. 
Mark  vi.  13.  Why  could  they  not  do  so  now?  This  was  the 
question  the  disciples  themselves  put  to  their  Master,  after 
they  had  retired  with  him  from  the  crowds,  verse  19.  He 
ascribed  their  failure  to  their  unbelief,  verse  20.  Yet  when  he 
sent  them  forth  to  preach  the  kingdom,  their  faith  was  not 
made  a  condition  for  the  successful  exercise  of  the  powers  con- 
ferred. Even  Judas  is  not  excepted  from  this  grant  of  miracu- 
lous power,  yet  no  one  can  suppose  he  had  any  real  faith  or 
holiness.  John  vi.  71 ;  xii.  6.  Why,  then,  was  faith  necessary 
on  this  occasion?  We  suggest  the  following  answer  to  these 
inquiries : 

The  miraculous  powers  with  which  the  twelve  apostles  had 
before  been  invested,  were  conferred  with  an  especial  view  to 
the  mission  on  which  they  were  then  sent,  and  were  confined  to 
that  mission.  The  special  design  of  this  gift  of  powers  was  to 
authenticate  the  proclamation  they  were  commanded  to  make. 
Matt.  X.  7.  So  long  as  they  were  engaged  in  that  mission,  we 
do  not  suppose  they  failed,  or  even  could  fail,  in  any  attempt 
to  cure  a  disease,  or  cast  out  a  demon  of  any  kind ;  because  a 
failure  would  have  impaired  the  evidence  of  their  proclamation. 
The  Divine  honour  and  power  were  chiefly  concerned  in  this 
measure.  It  was  God's  testimony  to  the  nation  of  the  near 
approach  of  his  kingdom,  and  his  own  exhibition  of  the  pre- 
appointed evidence  of  the  fact.  Steadily,  and  with  unerring 
effect  therefore,  the  power  of  the  name  of  Jesus,  when  invoked 
in  execution  of  his  command,  see  Matt.  xii.  27,  overcame  all 
the  power  of  the  enemy,  without  prayer  or  fasting,  and  even 
irrespectively  of  faith,  either  in  those  who  received  the  benefit 
of  the  miracles  or  in  the  apostles  who  performed  them.  But 
the  apostles,  as  we  learn  from  Mark  vi.  30,  returned  from  that 
mission  at  the  death  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  it  does  not  appear 
that  they  were  afterwards  sent  forth  to  preach  the  kingdom 
during  our  Lord's  personal  ministry.  The  special  object  of 
this  extraordinary  gift  of  power  having  been  accomplished,  the 
gift  itself  was  withdrawn  ;  that  is  to  say,  they  were  put  back 
into  the  condition  they  were  in,  before  they  were  sent  forth  to 
proclaim  the  kingdom. 

It  is  true  that  after  the  death  of  John  the  Baptist,  seventy 
other  disciples  were  invested  with  similar  powers,  Luke  x.  1 — 9, 
in  order  to  qualify  them  for  another  special  mission.  Here 
it  should  be  observed,  the  twelve  .apostles  were  sent  to  all  the 
cities  of  Israel  without  exception.  Matt.  x.  6,  23.  The  seventy 
disciples,  on  the  other  hand,  were  sent  only  to  those  cities  and 
places  whither  the  Lord  himself  ivoidd  come.  Luke  x.  1.  This 
is  a  difference  important  to  be  noticed.     The  apostles  were  sent 


THE  apostles'   WANT   OF   FAITH   FOR   MIRACLES.         183 

to  proclaim  the  kingdom  to  the  whole  nation.  Every  city  and 
place  of  Israel  was  within  the  scope  of  their  mission.  The 
seventy  disciples  were  sent  before  the  Lord  to  prepare  his  way, 
and  by  their  preaching  and  miracles  to  incline  the  minds  of  the 
people  to  receive  him.  It  was  a  gracious  means  designed  to 
prevent,  if  possible,  the  rejection  of  himself  as  the  Son  of  Man 
and  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  by  any  to  whom  he  should  after- 
wards personally  come.  The  seventy  were  commanded  to 
repeat  and  confirm  the  proclamation  the  twelve  apostles  had 
made,  Luke  x.  9,  11,  for  the  kingdom  was  still  nigh  to  them  as 
individuals  composing  the  nation,  although  it  had  been  virtually 
rejected  by  the  nation  itself,  by  the  rejection  of  John  the 
Baptist.  The  power  conferred  on  the  seventy  disciples,  like 
that  conferred  on  the  twelve  apostles,  appears  to  have  been 
unqualified,  and  in  no  respects  dependent  on  their  faith.   Luke 

X.  1(. 

Apart,  then,  from  a  special  design  or  purposg  connected 
with  our  Lord's  official  relations  or  functions,  either  as  Messiah 
or  Son  of  Man,  we  do  not  suppose  that  any  of  the  apostles  or 
disciples  had  power  to  work  miracles,  except  through  faith  in 
him;  but  with  faith,  some  who  did  not  join  themselves  to  the 
company  of  the  disciples,  could  cast  out  devils  in  his  name. 
Luke  X.  49 ;  Mark  ix.  39.  And  herein  lies  the  force  of  our 
Lord's  remark,  when  that  fact  was  mentioned  to  him  by  John : 
"There  is  no  man  which  shall  do  a  miracle  in  my  name,  that 
can  {dovTjasTac,  shall  be  able  to)  lightly  speak  evil  of  me, — 
because  his  faith,  through  which  he  alone  can  receive  such 
power,  is  a  proof  that  he  is  one  of  mine."  Mark  ix.  39; 
Luke  ix.  50. 

These  considerations  open  to  us  the  actual  condition  of  the 
apostles,  in  respect  to  miraculous  powers,  during  our  Lord's 
personal  ministry.  From  the  time  of  their  call  until  the  time 
they  were  commissioned  and  sent  forth  to  preach  the  kingdom, 
they  had  not  power  to  perform  miracles,  except  through  faith ; 
and  it  does  not  appear  that  they  attempted,  during  this  period 
of  their  discipleship,  to  perform  a  miracle  on  any  occasion. 
From  the  time  they  were  sent  forth  to  preach  the  kingdom, 
until  their  return  from  that  mission  at  the  death  of  John  the 
Baptist,  they  had  the  power  to  perform,  in  execution  of  their 
mission,  miracles  of  healing  and  miracles  of  power  over  demons ; 
but  this  power,  so  to  speak,  was  appended  or  made  appurtenant 
to  the  commission  given  them,  and  ceased  when  that  commission 
was  fully  executed.  From  that  time  onward  to  the  close  of  our 
Lord's  personal  ministry,  they  had  not  the  power  to  perform  a 
miracle,  except  through  faith  in  him  ;  and  the  power  was  not 
conferred  on  them  again  until  after  our  Lord's  final  ascension, 


184  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

when  tliey  received  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  among 
others,  the  gift  of  the  faith,  which  at  this  time  they  had  not. 

Bearing  these  considerations  in  mind,  we  return  to  the  text 
before  quoted.  The  nine  disciples  whom  the  Lord  left  behind, 
when  he  ascended  the  mountain,  failed  through  their  want  of 
faith  in  Jesus,  notwithstanding  the  many  proofs  he  had  given 
them  of  his  Divine  nature  and  power.  The  wonderful  works 
they  had  themselves  done  by  his  command,  to  say  nothing  of 
the  other  proofs  he  had  given  them  of  his  nature  and  attributes, 
should  have  wrought  faith  in  them,  if  indeed  faith  could  be  pro- 
duced by  evidence  of  the  most  powerful  and  convincing  kind. 
Hence  the  severity  of  our  Lord's  reproof:  "O  faithless  and 
perverse  generation,  (addressing  his  disciples,)  how  long  shall 
I  be  with  you?  How  long  shall  I  bear  with  you?"  They 
attempted  the  miracle,  relying,  it  is  probable,  on  the  success 
they  had  while  executing  the  commission  they  had  lately  ful- 
filled. Evidently  they  were  surprised  by  their  failure.  The 
tone  of  their  question  indicates  it.  No  doubt,  at  the  commence- 
ment of  their  mission,  they  were  surprised  at  their  success, 
Luke  X.  17,  and  the  Lord,  without  explaining  to  them  ivliy  the 
powers  formerly  conferred  upon  them  had  ceased,  adapts  his 
answer  to  the  condition  in  which  they  actually  were  at  that 
time,  in  which  also  they  were  to  continue,  until  they  should  be 
sent  forth  again  upon  a  wider  mission  after  his  ascension,  with 
the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  gift  of  true  faith. 

Matt.  xvii.  19,  20.  "Then  came  the  disciples  to  Jesus 
apart,  and  said.  Why  could  we  not  cast  him  out?  And  Jesus 
said  unto  them.  Because  of  your  unbelief:  For  verily  I  say 
unto  you,  If  ye  have  faith  as  a  grain  of  mustard-seed,  ye  shall 
say  unto  this  mountain,  [meaning,  perhaps,  the  mountain  from 
which  he  had  just  descended,]  Remove  hence  to  yonder  place, 
and  it  shall  remove;  and  nothing  shall  be  impossible  unto 
you.'' 

This  is  a  difficult  passage  to  explain.  The  difficulty  is  to 
determine  what  our  Lord  meant  by  "  faith  as  a  grain  of  mustard- 
seed."  We  have  many  examples  of  persons  who  sought  the 
Lord  for  healing,  with  faith  sufficient  to  receive  the  benefit  they 
sought;  yet  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  they  had  the  faith 
requisite  to  perform  a  miracle  in  his  name.  The  father  who 
besought  him  on  this  occasion  is  an  example.  Mark  ix.  23,  24. 
Had  he  the  faith  which  our  Lord  described,  and  could  he  have 
ejected  the  foul  spirit  from  his  child?  Had  the  apostles  less 
faith  than  this  father?  That  the  father  had  some  faith  is 
evident.  Mark  ix.  23,  24.  Is  all  faith  of  the  same  kind  ?  Or 
is  there  one  kind  of  faith  sufficient  to  receive  a  blessing  from 
the  Saviour,  but  not  sufficient  to  impart  or  convey  a  blessing 


THE   apostles'    WANT    OF   FAITH   FOR    MIRACLES.         185 

from  the  Saviour  to  another  person,  while  there  is  another  kind 
of  faith  suflficient  for  both  these  purposes  ?  1  Cor.  xiii.  2. 

That  there  is  some  ground  for  such  distinctions  may  be 
inferred  from  the  fact  before  stated,  and  also  from  the  cessation 
of  miracles  in  the  Church;  for  otherwise  the  cessation  of  miracles 
would  prove  the  utter  extinction  of  faith,  and  consequently,  of 
the  Church  itself.  Let  us  adopt  the  distinction  for  a  moment, 
and  proceed  to  consider  how  far  it  will  serve  to  explain  this 
passage.  The  apostles  were  applied  to  on  this  occasion  as  the 
knoivn  disciples  and  ministers  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  It  is  not 
improbable  that  the  father  who  brought  his  child  to  them,  had 
seen  or  heard  of  the  miracles  they  had  performed,  verse  16,  and 
they  essayed  to  act,  as  they  acted  before,  in  that  character. 
They  failed  in  this  attempt,  because  they  had  not  the  faith,  as 
his  ministers,  {actively)  to  fulfil  the  functions  of  their  office.  If 
we  consider  our  Lord's  answer,  in  verse  17,  as  addressed  to  the 
apostles  in  their  ministerial  character,  and  intended  as  a 
reproof  to  them,  we  may  find  an  intimation  in  it  of  the 
deficiency  with  which  they  were  especially  chargeable.  "  How 
long  shall  I  be  with  you?  how  long  shall  I  bear  with  you?" 
As  if  he  had  said,  "  Must  I  for  ever  remain  with  you  perform- 
ing such  signs  and  wonders  as  you  have  seen,  which  demon- 
strate the  glory  of  my  person  and  the  greatness  of  my  power  ? 
Will  ye  never  learn  to  know  who  I  am,  and  to  believe  in  me  as 
I  am  ?  What  other  signs  and  wonders  must  I  show  you,  if 
those  which  you  have  seen  do  not  convince  you?"  It  is  evi- 
dent they  did  not  properly  appreciate  the  evidence  they  had  of 
his  glory  and  majesty,  and  consequently  their  conceptions  of 
his  nature  and  offices  were  low  and  grovelling.  They  had  no 
clear  apprehension  of  his  Deity,  or  of  his  power  and  glory  as 
Son  of  Man  and  Lord  of  the  world.  This  deficiency  unfitted 
them  for  his  active  service  as  stewards  and  dispensers  of  his 
Divine  powers.  To  serve  in  this  capacity  they  must  needs  have 
a  faith  founded  upon  a  clear  apprehension  of  the  nature,  attri- 
butes, and  glorious  majesty  of  their  Master,  as  God-Man- 
Messiah.  But  his  incarnate  and  outwardly  humble  condition, 
or  the  veil  of  his  flesh,  as  the  apostle  expresses  it,  Heb.  x.  20, 
concealed  the  inherent  and  essential  glory  of  his  person  almost 
as  eifectually  from  them  as  it  did  from  the  masses  of  the  people, 
and  the  veil  continued  until  the  cloud  at  last  concealed  his  body 
from  their  sight,  on  the  day  of  his  final  ascension.  Even  Peter, 
James,  and  John,  who  were  witnesses  of  the  transfiguration, 
are  not  to  be  excepted  from  this  remark.  John  xiii.  36,  38 ; 
Mark  x.  35  ;  xiv.  50,  71 ;  Luke  xxii.  82;  Matt,  xviii.  3. 

If  we  may  adopt  this  view  of  the  passage,  the  faith  which 
our  Lord  spoke  of,  had  respect  to  the  powers  of  his  kingdom, 
24 


186  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 

and  to  the  apostles  as  his  ministers  in  his  kingdom,  and  dis- 
pensers or  channels  for  the  dispensation  of  those  powers.  Such 
faith  is  of  too  high  a  nature  to  be  produced  or  wrought  in  man, 
as  he  now  is,  by  mere  evidence.  It  is  the  product  of  the  Holy 
Spirit's  power  alone.  Accordingly  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  the 
apostles  received  it.  Acts  iii.  16,  in  such  measure  as  the  Divine 
purposes  at  that  time  required.  But  the  full  exhibition  of  the 
power  of  faith,  as  we  may  infer  from  the  example  our  Lord 
gives  in  this  passage,  (comp.  1  Cor.  xiii.  2,)  is  not  to  be  expected 
during  this  order  of  things.  The  faith  which  feeds  and  sus- 
tains the  Church  now,  is  more  like  the  faith  of  the  father  who 
besought  the  Saviour  to  heal  his  child,  Mark  ix.  22,  24,  than 
the  active  energizing  principle  which  the  Saviour  describes  and 
will  give  to  those  whom  he  will  make  partners  in  his  throne. 
Rev.  iii.  21.  More  adequate  and  realizing  views  of  the  majesty 
and  glory  of  the  Lord,  would,  no  doubt,  impart  unwonted 
energy  to  the  faith  of  the  Church  even  in  this  dispensation ; 
but  whether  such  views  will  be  attained  before  the  coming  of 
the  Lord,  depends  wholly  upon  the  operations  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  for  which  we  can  only  pray,  with  such  faith  as  we  now 
have. 

Matt.  xvii.  21.  "Howbeit  this  kind"  [of  demons,  or  this 
kind  or  order  of  beings  called  demons]  "  goeth  not  out  but  by 
prayer  and  fasting." 

It  seems  extraordinary  that  our  Lord,  after  ascribing  such 
power  to  faith,  should  seem  to  admit  that  any  kind  of  foul 
spirits  could  not  be  overcome  by  it.  It  seems  extraordinary 
also,  that  he  should  ascribe  to  prayer  and  fasting  greater 
powers  than  those  he  had  ascribed  to  faith.  Yet  these  are 
deductions  which  some  make  from  the  text.  In  order  to 
interpret  this  passage  we  must  rightly  appreciate  our  Lord's 
position  as  a  teacher  of  such  men  as  the  apostles  were  at  that 
time.  Their  mistaken  views  on  some  points,  and  their  utter 
ignorance  of  coming  and  even  impending  events,  have  already 
been  frequently  alluded  to.  In  conveying  instruction  to  them 
he  took  them  as  they  were,  and  expressed  himself  in  such  terms 
as  were  best  suited  to  their  extremely  limited  powers  of  appre- 
hension. Had  he  said  to  them,  in  plain  language,  that  they 
were  about  to  pass  into  a  new  dispensation,  entirely  different 
from  that  then  existing,  in  which  they  would  be  subjected  to  a 
new  discipline,  and  receive  new  influences ;  and  that  this  dis- 
pensation was  to  be  introduced  by  his  crucifixion,  death,  resur- 
rection, and  ascension  into  heaven,  which  would  be  followed  by 
the  mission  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  would  not  have  understood 
him;  for  they  could  not  so  much  as  conceive  of  his  rejection 
and  death.     Such  sayings  "  would  have  been  hid  from  them, 


THE   FAITH   FOR   WORKING   MIRACLES.  187 

neither  would  they  have  known  the  things  which  were  spoken." 
Luke  xviii.  34. 

Our  Lord,  therefore,  did  not  take  this  method,  although  his 
allusion,  in  the  words  under  consideration  was,  as  we  conceive, 
to  the  dispensation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  Avhich  he  denotes  by  one 
of  its  adjuncts,  or  ordinances.  Fasting  was  not  a  part  of  the 
discipline  which  our  Lord  appointed  to  his  disciples.  Indeed 
it  was  his  will  and  appointment  that  they  should  not  fast  while 
he  remained  with  them.  Matt.  ix.  14,  15;  Mark  ii.  19,  20. 
But  when  he  should  be  taken  away  from  them,  that  is  after  his 
ascension,  then  it  was  his  will  that  they  should  fast  as  well  as 
pray.  The  allusion,  though  it  may  seem  to  us  obscure,  is  to 
post-ascension  times,  and  the  new  order  of  things  and  discipline 
which  Avould  then  be  established ;  then,  through  prayer  and 
fasting,  they  would  receive  from  the  Holy  Spirit  the  faith  by 
which  they  would  be  able  to  cast  out  this  kind  of  demons.  The 
words  of  the  Saviour  are  limited  to  the  occasion  and  the  ques- 
tion he  was  answering ;  or  the  case  in  hand.  He  declared  the 
cause  of  their  failure  in  that  particular  instance ;  leaving  it  to 
them  to  infer  that  in  all  cases  requiring  the  exercise  of  miracu- 
lous power,  the  want  of  faith  would  be  followed  by  the  same 
result. 

In  confirmation  of  this  interpretation  it  may  be  added,  that 
it  does  not  appear  that  any  of  the  apostles  did  perform  any 
miracles  after  the  death  of  John  the  Baptist,  until  they  received 
the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  after  our  Lord's  ascension ;  and  if  we 
consider  the  new  posture  of  the  nation  in  consequence  of  that 
event,  and  the  change  in  our  Lord's  ministry  consequent  upon 
it,  see  notes  on  Matt.  xiv.  10,  we  cannot  perceive  any  reason, 
arising  from  their  official  relations  to  the  Lord  Jesus,  why  they 
should.  It  is  probable  they  were  his  constant  attendants  on  his 
journeyings  from  place  to  place ;  and  when  persons  brought 
their  sick  to  be  healed,  the  Lord  himself  was  present  to  heal 
them.  The  Evangelists  uniformly  represent  him,  and  not  his 
disciples,  as  performing  the  cures.  On  the  occasion  in  ques- 
tion, nine  of  the  apostles  were  for  a  short  time  separated  from 
their  Master.  It  was  an  extraordinary  occurrence,  brought 
about  by  an  extraordinary  design  or  occasion.  We  do  not 
know  that  they  were  separated  as  long,  at  any  time  afterwards, 
until  they  fled  from  him  in  the  garden  of  Gethsemane.  Matt. 
xxvi.  56  ;  Mark  xiv.  50. 

The  passage  is  regarded  by  all  interpreters  as  very  obscure, 
and  the  foregoing  interpretation,  if  not  satisfactory,  may  sug- 
gest one  which  is  so.  At  least  it  seems  preferable  to  that  which 
ascribes  the  failure  of  the  apostles  to  the  neglect  of  a  practice 
which  they  were  not  required  at  that  time  to  observe — a  prac- 


188  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

tice  which,  for  some  reason,  it  was  not  proper  or  possible  for 
them  to  observe.  Mark  ii.  19.  Indeed,  if  the  reader  will  duly 
consider  what  has  been  said  in  the  note  on  verse  16,  and  the 
other  notes  therein  referred  to,  he  will  not  hastily  reject  this 
interpretation. 

Matt.  xvii.  22,  23.  "And  while  they  abode  in  Galilee, 
Jesus  said  unto  them,  the  Son  of  Man  [tnx  -p  Ben  Adam,  Ps. 
viii.  6]  shall  be  betrayed  into  the  hands  of  men,  [t2"'r:5«  '^T'n 
bidi  miasJuni]  and  they  shall  kill  him,  and  the  third  day  he 
shall  be  raised  again."    Mark  ix.  31. 

It  has  been  already  remarked,  that  our  Lord  is  to  be  con- 
sidered under  three  distinct  relations,  which  met  and  were 
blended  in  his  person.  He  was  the  Divine  Word,  the  second 
person  of  the  Trinity,  and  as  such  the  Maker  and  Governor  of 
the  universe.  Col.  i.  16.  He  was  the  Son  of  Man — the  Adam 
of  the  Covenant,  or  as  St.  Paul  calls  him,  the  second  man — the 
last  Adam.  1  Cor.  xv.  45,  47.  In  this  character  he  was  and 
is,  under  God,  1  Cor.  xv.  28,  the  absolute  Sovereign  and  uni- 
versal Lord  and  Governor  of  the  world.  As  such  he  is  also 
the  High-priest  of  the  world,  and  the  only  Mediator  between  it 
and  all  its  concerns  and  God.  His  sovereignty  and  priesthood 
go  together,  and  because  he  sustains  the  one,  no  other  being  in 
the  universe  is  capable  of  sustaining  or  performing,  officially  or 
acceptably,  the  functions  of  the  other.  He  was  also  the  Mes- 
siah of  Israel,  and  as  such,  the  Christ.  But  his  priestly  office, 
though  commensurate  with  his  kingly  office  as  Son  of  Man,  Avas 
by  God's  covenant  with  David  united  to  or  connected  with  his 
Messianic  office.  Hence  it  was,  that  although  the  purpose  of 
his  first  advent  was  to  atone  for  the  sin  of  the  world,  1  John 
ii.  2 ;  John  i.  29,  and  redeem  the  world  as  his  inheritance ;  his 
mission  at  that  time  was  nevertheless  confined  to  Israel.  Matt. 
XV.  24 ;  X.  5,  6.  At  his  second  advent  he  will  come  to  take 
possession  of  the  world  as  his  kingdom,  and  to  rule  over  it  as 
the  Son  of  Man.  Matt.  xvi.  27;  xxv.  31,  32;  John  v.  27; 
Heb.  ix.  28.  See  also  the  notes  on  Matt.  viii.  20,  23—27; 
ix.  4;  xiii.  37—43. 

Bearing  these  distinctions  in  mind,  we  observe  that  our 
blessed  Lord,  whenever  he  spoke  of  his  approaching  suiferings, 
always  designated  himself  as  the  Son  of  Man ;  as  if  the  body 
he  bore  as  Son  of  Man  was  the  sacrifice  appointed  for  him  to 
make.  Matt.  xx.  18,  28;  xxvi.  2,  24,  45;  xvii.  12;  Mark  viii. 
31;  ix.  31 ;  x.  33,  45;  xiv.  21,  41;  Luke  ix.  22,  44;  xxii.  22. 
But  his  priestly  office,  to  which  the  act  of  making  sacrifice 
belonged,  could  not,  in  the  nature  of  things,  as  we  have  shown, 
be  inferior  to  the  order  of  his  manhood,  see  notes  on  Matt.  xvi. 
13,  15;  xxi.  28;  and  the  apostle  Paul,  in  Heb.  v.  6, 10;  vi.  20; 


JESUS   AS    SON   OF   MAN   AND   AS    CHRIST.  189 

vii.  16,  21,  expressly  teaches  us  that  his  priesthood  was 
according  to  the  order  of  Melchizedec,  the  nature  of  which  he 
briefly  describes.  It  was  higher  than  the  order  of  Aaron,  and 
distinguished  from  it  in  many  important  respects.  Heb.  vi., 
vii.,  viii.  It  was  perpetual  in  his  hands,  verse  24 — it  was 
according  to  the  power  of  an  endless  life,  verse  16 — it  was 
universal  in  its  scope  and  effect,  verse  25.  In  all  these 
respects  it  agrees  with  the  nature,  attributes,  and  office  of 
Jesus  as  the  Son  of  Man. 

The  apostles,  on  the  other  hand,  in  their  epistles,  never  spoke 
of  his  sufferings  as  those  of  the  Son  of  Man,  but  as  the  suffer- 
ings of  Christ.  Rom.  v.  6,  8;  viii.  34;  1  Pet.  i.  11;  v.  1,  et 
passim.  This  difference  is  remarkable,  and  cannot  be  accounted 
for  satisfactorily,  except  by  the  distinctions  before  taken 
between  the  Saviour's  relations  or  offices  as  Son  of  Man  and 
Messiah,  and  the  nature  and  objects  of  the  present  dispensation 
of  the  Gospel,  of  which  the  apostles  were  the  first  ministers, 
and  the  final  dispensation  of  the  restitution  of  all  things.  This 
will  appear  by  the  following  considerations. 

Israel,  according  to  the  flesh,  were  the  chosen  or  elect  people 
of  God.  To  them  peculiar  and  very  glorious  promises  were 
made,  upon  the  condition  of  their  obedience.  Had  they  fulfilled 
this  condition,  or  had  that  generation  of  Israel  to  whom  the 
Saviour  went,  received  him  with  true  faith,  and  with  the  obedi- 
ence of  the  heart,  John  i.  11 ;  Matt,  xxiii.  37 ;  Ps.  Ixxxi.  13 — 16, 
then,  indeed,  they  would  have  been  a  peculiar  treasure  unto 
God  above  all  people — a  kingdom  of  priests,  and  eminently 
holy  above  all  other  nations.  Exod.  xix.  5,  6.  In  order  to  the 
fulfilment  of  these  promises,  God  graciously  covenanted  with 
David  that  the  Son  of  Man — the  Adam  of  the  everlasting  cove- 
nant, should  become  incarnate  in  his  race,  and  the  heir  of  his 
throne,  by  means  of  which  covenant  his  universal  priesthood 
was  knitted  or  annexed  to  his  office  as  Messiah.  Such  was  the 
Divine  plan;  and  although  Israel  fell,  and  thereby  lost  these 
privileges,  that  plan  was  not  thereby  frustrated.  Rom.  xi.  11 ; 
Matt.  xxi.  43.  .  A  new  dispensation  was  opened  upon  the  fall 
of  Israel,  in  order  to  gather  out  of  all  nations  another  elect 
people,  who  should  take  the  place  of  Israel  according  to  the 
flesh  ;  and  by  becoming  the  peculiar  people  of  Messiah,  become 
also  a  peculiar  treasure  unto  God  and  a  kingdom  of  priests. 
1  Pet.  ii.  9.  Now,  the  ministry  committed  to  the  apostles  was 
appointed  to  gather  this  elect  people  for  the  Lord  Jesus,  not  as 
the  Son  of  Man,  (for  as  such  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  are 
his)  but  as  the  Messiah  of  Israel  or  the  Church.  Hence  they 
preached  him  as  the  Christ,  and  spoke  and  wrote  only  of  his 
sufferings  as  Christ,  and  not  as  the  Son  of  Man. 


190  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

Yet  the  gathering  of  this  elect  people  is  not  the  whole  of  our 
Lord's  redemptive  work.  As  the  Son  of  Man  and  the  patri- 
archal king  and  priest  of  the  whole  world — the  true  Melchi- 
zedec  and  king  of  peace,*  he  redeemed,  by  the  offering  of  his 

*  Very  various  opinions  have  been  entertained  concerning  the  person  of 
Melchizedec.  Some  have  supposed  he  was  Shem — others  that  he  was  a  grand- 
son of  Shem ;  others  that  he  was  a  great-grandson,  or  other  descendant,  of 
Japhet ;  others  suppose  he  was  Ham;  others,  still,  that  he  was  a  righteous  and 
peaceful  Canaanitish  king,  cotemporary  with  Abraham,  without  pretending  to 
determine  anything  more  about  him.  See  Stuart  on  Heb.  vii.  3;  Excursus 
xiii.,  and  Brown's  Dictionary.  Other  writers  have  maintained  that  he  was  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Yet  others,  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God  in  his  Divine  nature; 
and  still  others,  that  he  was  Christ  himself:  which  last  opinion  was  rejected  by 
Professor  Stuart,  for  the  reason  that  it  would  force  us  to  adopt  the  interpreta- 
tion that  "Christ  is  like  unto  himself,"  or  that  a  comparison  was  formally 
instituted  by  the  apostle  between  Christ  and  hiinself — "Cujus  mentio  est  refu- 
tatio."     Upon  this  question  it  may  be  remarked, 

(1.)  That  he  was  a  man,  and  not  God  era  divine  person  of  the  Trinity,  fol- 
lows from  the  nature  of  the  office  of  a  priest  or  mediator  for  man  with 
God.  Heb.  v.  1,  4,  5;  Gal.  iii.  20;  1  Tim.  ii.  5.  See  Matt.  xx.  28;  note, 
Mark  x.  45. 

(2.)  That  he  was  a  greater  man  than  Abraham  is  expressly  asserted  by  the 
apostle.  Heb.  vii.  7,  also  4.  He  was  greater  also  than  the  whole  Levitical 
priesthood  put  together,  for  virtually  they  all  paid  him  tithes  in  Abraham, 
according  to  the  reasoning  of  the  apostle.  What  Canaanitish  king  could 
answer  this  description?  Abraham  had  the  promises,  and  was  thereby 
distinguished  above  all  his  cotemporaries.  He  was  called  the  friend  of  God. 
2  Chron.  xx.  7 ;  Isa.  xli.  1,  8;  James  ii.  23.  He  was  the  greatest  mortal  maa 
of  his  day. 

(3.)  That  Melchizedec  was  not  a  sinful  mortal  man,  who  needed  to  be 
redeemed  himself  by  a  priest  of  his  own  order,  is  proved  by  the  dignity, 
excellency,  and  enduring  nature  of  his  priesthood  :  for  if  he  were  such,  it 
would  follow,  that  had  he  been  on  earth  at  the  time  our  Lord  offered  his  body 
as  a  sacrifice,  though  a  mortal  man,  of  our  fallen  race,  he  would  have  been 
the  officiating  priest,  and  performed  the  act  of  making  the  sacrifice,  as 
Abraham  essayed  to  do  when  he  laid  Isaac  on  the  altar.  But  the  whole 
course  of  the  reasoning  of  the  apostle,  Heb.  v.,  vi.,  vii.,  as  well  as  our  Lord's 
own  declaration,  John  x.  17,  18,  renders  the  things  supposed  impossible. 

(4.)  The  description  which  the  apostle  gives  us  of  Melchizedec,  if  we  may 
understand  him  to  mean  what  he  says,  proves  that  he  was  not  a  man  of 
Adam's  race  He  was  without  father,  without  mother,  without  any  (human) 
genealogy.  He  had  neither  beginning  of  days  nor  end  of  life,  but  was  made 
like  unto  (or  conformed  unto)  the  Son  of  God,  by  reason,  or  means,  as  we 
suppose,  of  his  union  with  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  and  consequently, 
eterually  a  priest  without  a  successor  in  his  office. 

(5.)  Again,  his  name,  which  must  be  understood  in  its  full  and  proper 
import,  is  descriptive  of  his  person  and  office.  Thus  understood,  it  can  belong 
to  no  being  in  the  universe  but  the  Son  of  Man— the  Ben  Adam  of  the  ever- 
lasting covenant.  For  he  only  can  truly  be  called  the  King  of  righteousness 
and  peace,  having  universal  and  everlasting  dominion  over  this  world.  Isa.  ix.  6; 
Ps.  ii.  6,  12;  Dan.  vii.  14;  comp.  also  John  viii.  58,  with  Heb.  vii.  4.  As  the 
absolute  Lord  of  the  world,  the  Son  of  Man  is  the  only  being  capable  of  the 
functions  of  High  Priest  of  the  world,  and  of  Mediator  between  it  and  all  its 
concerns  and  God.  As  the  world,  which  was  his  inheritance,  had  fallen  under 
the  curse  of  God,  he  only  could  redeem  it  from  apostacy  and  sin,  and  restore  it 
to  allegiance  and  the  Divine  favour. 

(6.)  David  refers  to  Melchizedec  in  a  prophecy  concerning  the  exaltation  of 
Chx'ist  as  an  extraordinary  person.  Ps.  ex.  4:   "Jehovah  hath  sworn,  and  it 


JESUS   AS    SON   OF   MAN  AND   AS   MESSIAH.  191 

body,  the  world  itself,  which  was  from  the  beginning  his  right- 
ful possession  as  the  Son  of  Man.  Hence  the  apostle  John, 
1  John  ii.  2,  speaking  in  the  name  of  the  whole  body  of  the 
elect,  or  of  the  universal  Church,  says,  "  Who  is  the  propitia- 
tion for  our  (that  is,  his  elect  people's)  sins,  and  not  for  ours 
only,  but  also  for  the  whole  world."*  According  to  the  same 
distinction,  we  understand  an  expression  of  the  apostle  Paul, 
in  1  Tim.  iv.  10,  "Who  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  especially  of 
those  that  believe." 

The  only  salvation  offered  to  men  during  this  dispensation  is 
this  great  or  especial  salvation  of  the  elect  people,  given  to 
Christ  as  his  peculiar  people,  Tit.  ii.  14,  who  are  to  inherit  the 
privileges  first  conditionally  promised  to  Israel  according  to  the 
flesh,  Exod.  xix.  5,  6 — called,  on  account  of  their  subrogation, 
"the  Israel  of  God."  Gal.  vi.  16.  Hence  the  apostles  preached 
Jesus  as  the  Christ,  not  as  the  Son  of  Man.  Their  commissions 
and  all  their  labours  fell  within  the  Messianic  ofiice  of  our 
Lord.  His  kingdom,  as  Messiah  or  the  Christ,  is,  during  the 
whole  of  this  dispensation  or  order  of  things,  the  great  and  the 
only  concern.  All,  to  whom  the  Gospel  is  preached,  are  invited 
to  embrace  this  great  salvation  and  enter  this  kingdom.  But 
when  this  kingdom  shall  be  consummated  by  the  gathering 
to  himself  of  the  accomplished  aggregate  of  his  elect — that  is, 
of  all  who  have  been  given  to  him  in  that  relation  or  character, 
then  will  he  come  in  his  kingdom  as  the  Son  of  Man,  and 

repenteth  him  not.  Thou  art  a  priest  for  ever,  after  [according  to]  the  order 
[manner]  of  Melchizedec."  It  is  true  he  gives  no  explanation  of  his  person 
or  character.  Yet  from  the  manner  in  which  his  name  is  introduced,  he  was 
of  a  rank  worthy  of  the  Divine  persons  engaged  in  the  transaction.  The  oath 
of  Jehovah  cannot  be  interpreted  of  an  inconsiderable  person  or  thing.  Nor 
can  the  Messiah  in  his  exaltation  be  in  any  of  his  relations  or  offices,  of  the 
rank  or  order  of  a  mortal  man.  As  observed  above,  the  order  of  our  Lord's 
priesthood  could  not  be  inferior  to  the  order  of  his  manhood,  and  he  is  the  one 
and  only  map  of  his  own  order.  He  is  the  head  of  the  new  creation — the 
second  Adam,  and  cannot  take  rank  in  his  person  or  any  of  his  offices  from  any 
of  our  mortal  race. 

These  considerations  might  be  enforced  by  an  examination  of  Heb.  v., 
vi.,  vii.,  but  without  more,  they  justify  the  conclusion  (we  submit)  that  the 
Melchizedec  who  met  Abraham  and  blessed  him.  Gen.  xiv.  18,  and  brought 
forth  bread  and  wine,  the  elements  employed  by  the  Saviour,  at  the  institution 
of  the  Supper,  was  the  Son  of  Man — the  Adam  to  whom  the  psalmist,  Ps.  viii., 
ascribes  universal  dominion.  With  this  view  of  the  question,  let  the  reader 
ponder  John  viii.  5G — 58:  "  Your  father  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day,  and 
he  saw  and  was  glad."  .  .  .  .  "  Before  Abraham  was,  I  am."  We  add  only, 
that  this  interpretation  is  not  open  to  the  objection  of  Professor  Stuart,  before 
mentioned ;  for  it  amounts  to  this,  that  the  order  of  our  Lord's  priesthood,  as 
the  Christ  or  Mcasiah  of  Israel,  is  according  to  the  order  of  his  nature,  offices, 
and  attributes  as  the  Son  of  Man.     See  the  notes  on  Matt.  xx.  28. 

*  The  words,  the  sins  of,  are  a  gloss  of  tlie  translators,  and  should  be 
omitted.     They  tend  to  mislead  from  the  true  sense. 


192  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

extend  his  benignant  rule  over  all  the  nations  of  the  earth, 
Matt.  XXV.  31,  and  the  blessed  effect  of  his  redemptive  work 
be  seen  and  felt  in  the  restitution  of  all  things. 

The  sum  of  what  has  been  advanced  on  this  topic  may  be 
thus  stated :  Our  Lord,  in  speaking  of  his  sufferings  as  the  Son 
of  Man,  had  in  view  the  whole  of  his  redemptive  work,  not  only 
as  it  respected  his  elect  people  belonging  to  him  as  Messiah, 
but  the  world  itself  and  the  nations  who  are  to  dwell  upon  it 
during  all  futurity,  which  belongs  to  him  as  the  Son  of  Man. 
Matt.  xiii.  41 ;  xxv.  31—34,  40. 

The  apostles,  on  the  other  hand,  speak  only  of  his  sufferings 
as  Christ,  because  the  ministry  which  had  been  committed 
to  them  had  respect  only  to  the  kingdom  w^hich  had  been 
given  to  our  Lord,  as  the  seed  of  David  and  the  Messiah  of 
Israel,  which  must  be  consummated  before  his  coming  into  his 
kingdom  as  the  Son  of  Man. 

This  interpretation  suggests  that  our  Lord's  kingdom  as  the 
Christ  is  a  kingdom  of  kings  and  priests  exalted  to  thrones  of 
glory  in  the  world  of  redemption,  Rev.  iii.  21 ;  i.  6 ;  v.  10 
Matt.  xix.  28  ;  Luke  xxii.  29;  Rom.  viii.  28—30  ;  Phil.  iii.  21 
1  Thess.  iv.  17;  2  Tim.  ii.  12;  Rom.  viii.  17;  1  Pet.  iv.  13 
Eph.  i.  20,  23 ;    1  Cor.  iii.  16 ;  vi.  19 ;  John  xvii.  9,  20,  24, 
constituting,  as  it  were,  a  vast  temple  for  the  indwelling  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.     This  kingdom  is  distinct  from  his  kingdom  as 
the  Son  of  Man,  which  is  a  kingdom  over  this  world  and  the 
nations  and  people  that  shall  dwell  upon  it.  Dan.  vii.  14 ;  Rev. 
xxi.  24;  Matt.  xxv.  31 — 46.     But  this  also  is  a  glorious  and 
an   everlasting   kingdom,   which    shall    not   pass    away  or  be 
destroyed,  Dan.  vii.  14 ;  ii.  44,  out  of  which  he  will  cast  and 
destroy   all   things    that  offend,   and    them   that  do   iniquity. 
Matt.  xiii.  41. 

One  observation  more  :  The  union  of  the  Divine  to  the  human 
nature  of  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  Man,  and  the  incarnation  of  both 
under  the  Abrahamic  and  Davidic  covenant,  have  Exalted  his 
human  nature  to  the  throne  of  the  universe.  Rev.  iii.  21,  and 
his  elect  people  to  his  own  throne  as  Son  of  Man,  Rev.  i.  13, 
comp.  with  Rev.  ii.  26,  27,  iii.  21,  and  so  made  them  also  kings 
and  priests  unto  God.  Rev.  xx.  6 ;  v.  10 ;  i.  6.  Whether, 
therefore,  the  apostles  speak  of  our  blessed  Lord  as  the  Son  of 
God,  or  as  the  Son  of  Man,  or  as  the  Christ,  or  simply  as 
Jesus,  they  refer  to  the  complexity  of  his  person  as  God-Man- 
Messiah,  the  Maker  and  Redeemer  of  the  world — and  the  Re- 
deemer of  Israel;  and  they  seldom  have  occasion,  as  Paul  had 
when  reasoning  about  the  priesthood  of  Jesus,  to  ascribe  the 
particular  parts  of  his  work  discriminately  to  the  particular 
character,    relation   or   office   in   which   he    performed   them, 


Christ's  paying  tribute.  193 

because  their  mission  and  office  fell  within  and  were  circum- 
scribed by  his  mission  and  offices  as  the  Christ,  and  the  designed 
end  and  especial  purposes  of  these  will  be  fully  attained  when 
the  elect  Church,  or  the  Israel  of  God,  shall  be  completed,  and 
the  Lord  shall  come  to  receive  it  to  himself.  Matt.  xiii.  43,  and 
see  notes  on  Matt.  xii.  8. 

Matt.  xvii.  24.  "And  when  they  were  come  to  Caper- 
naum, they  that  received  tribute  money  came  to  Peter  and  said, 
Doth  not  your  Master  pay  tribute?" 

The  fact  that  such  a  question  should  be  addressed  to  a  fol- 
lower of  the  Lord,  shows  how  completely  his  Divine  nature  was 
concealed  under  his  humanity.  The  question  assumes  that  he 
was  a  mere  man,  and  a  subject  of  earthly  government.  It 
affords  a  proof  of  the  meekness  and  quietness  of  our  Lord's 
demeanour.  Matt.  xii.  19,  and  of  the  groundlessness  of  the 
charge  made  against  him  before  Pilate  by  the  chief  priests  and 
rulers  of  the  Jews.  Luke  xxiii.  2. 
Matt.  xvii.  25.     "  He  saith.  Yes." 

If  we  reflect  what  opportunities  this  apostle  had  had  of 
knowing  his  Master's  true  nature  and  character,  his  answer  will 
appear  more  extraordinary  than  the  question.  He  had  wit- 
nessed the  power  of  his  Avill  over  the  winds  and  the  waves.  He 
had  seen  him  raise  the  dead  by  his  voice,  feed  thousands  with  a 
few  loaves,  walk  on  the  sea,  and  but  just  before,  beheld  the 
transfiguration  of  his  person.  He  had  heard  the  voice  of  the 
Father  acknowledging  him  as  his  Son.  What  impressions 
were  these  things  adapted  to  make  on  the  mind  of  this  apostle? 
Yet  upon  being  asked,  "Doth  not  your  Master  pay  tribute?" 
"he  saith,  "Yes."  The  answer  was  inconsiderate  unless  it  be 
understood  as  meaning  nothing  more,  than  that  it  was  his 
Master's  habit  or  practice  to  pay  tribute.  But  in  whatever 
sense  we  are  to  understand  it,  our  Lord's  questioning  of  him 
was  designed  to  awaken  reflection  and  explain  the  motive  of 
his  OAvn  conduct  if  such  had  been  his  custom  or  practice. 

Matt.  xvii.  25,  26.  "  And  when  he  was  come  into  the 
house,  Jesus  prevented  [anticipated]  him,  saying.  What  thinkest 
thou,  Simon  ?  of  whom  do  the  kings  of  the  earth  take  custom 
or  tribute  ?  of  their  own  sons  or  from  other  persons  ?  Peter 
saith  to  him.  Of  other  persons.  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Then  are 
the  sons  free." 

It  is  probable  that  Peter  entered  the  house  to  inform  the 
Saviour  of  the  presence  of  the  tax  collectors,  and  of  their 
demand.  But  in  this  he  was  anticipated.  The  case  put  was 
closely  analogical.  Custom  or  tribute  is  both  an  exaction  and 
a  duty,  from  which  the  sons  of  earthly  kings  were  exempt. 
The  analogy  was  too  obvious  to  Peter  to  require  an  express 
25 


194  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

application.  He  could  not  have  forgotten  the  voice  from  the 
cloud,  "This  is  my  beloved  Son."  Who  could  exact  tribute 
from  him  or  impose  on  him  the  duty  to  pay  it  ?  Has  the  God 
of  the  whole  earth  less  power  than  earthly  kings  ?  The  miracle 
recorded  in  the  next  verse,  in  fact  proved  his  exemption;  for 
he  that  could  make  the  fish  of  the  sea  his.  servants,  could  have 
made  all  the  kings  of  the  earth  and  their  subjects,  even  the 
earth  itself,  open  and  proffer  to  him  their  treasures  at  his  will. 

Matt.  xvii.  27.  But  that  we  may  not  "offend  them,  go 
thou  to  the  sea  and  cast  a  hook,  and  take  up  the  fish  that  first 
Cometh  up,  and  when  thou  hast  opened  his  mouth,  thou  shalt 
find  a  piece  of  money ;  that  take  and  give  unto  them,  for  me 
and  thee." 

The  Evangelist  does  not  say  that  Peter  did  as  he  was  bid,  or 
that  he  actually  found  the  piece  of  money  required.  He  is 
contented  with  reciting  merely  the  circumstances  which  led  to 
this  direction,  leaving  it  to  the  reader  to  supply  the  rest.  We 
have  no  doubt  that  the  apostle  executed  his  Master's  command, 
with  the  success  foretold.  This  miracle  had  even  fewer  wit- 
nesses than  the  transfiguration.  We  are  not  informed  that  any 
other  of  the  disciples  heard  the  direction,  or  went  with  Peter 
to  the  sea,  and  saw  him  cast  a  hook  or  take  a  fish  with  the 
money  in  his  mouth.  Peter,  so  far  as  we  know,  was  the  only 
witness  of  the  miracle ;  but  he  no  doubt  spoke  of  it  to  his 
fellow  disciples.  It  taught  them,  or  should  have  taught  them, 
that  they  could  need  no  other  riches  than  the  love  and  favour  of 
their  Divine  Master. 

The  miracle  was  an  example  of  our  Lord's  power,  as  the  Son 
of  Man,  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  according  to  Psalm  viii.  8, 
and  this  we  suppose  is  the  chief  point  of  instruction.  Of  all 
the  miracles  our  Lord  performed,  this  is  the  most  difiicult  for 
false  religionists  to  explain  away.  "  Peter  is  sent  to  the  sea, 
not  with  a  net,  but  with  a  hook  ...  A  net  might  enclose  many 
fishes,  a  hook  could  take  but  one  ....  A  fish  shall  bring 
him  a  stater  in  her  mouth ;  and  that  the  fish  that  bites  first. 
What  an  unusual  bearer  is  here !  what  an  unlikely  element  to 
yield  a  piece  of  ready  coin!"  Bishop  Hall.  Nothing  short  of 
absolute  power  over  the  fish  of  the  sea  and  knowledge  of  them, 
could  have  enabled  the  Saviour  to  perform  this  miracle. 

This  is  the  only  miracle  of  the  kind  mentioned  by  Matthew, 
and  he  selected  it,  as  we  suppose,  because  it  was  the  most 
striking  illustration  of  the  power  -of  Jesus  as  Son  of  Man.  At 
the  calling  of  Peter,  according  to  Luke,  v.  4 — 10,  our 
Lord  displayed  his  power  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  again, 
according  to  John,  after  his  resurrection.  .John  xxi.  6 — 11. 
These  last  were  witnessed  only  by  those  who  were,  or  were  to 


THE    APOSTLES   ASK   WHO    SHALL   BE    GREATEST.  105 

be,  apostles,  and  consequently  were  a  part  of  their  private 
instruction;  and  although  both  of  them  were  perfectly  con- 
vincing to  those  who  saw  them,  yet  are  they  more  easily  evaded 
or  explained  away  by  rationalistic  interpreters,  than  the  one 
we  are  considering.  For  either  the  fact  itself  here  recorded 
must  be  denied,  or,  as  Bengel  observes,  a  manifold  miracle  of 
omniscience  and  omnipotence  must  be  admitted,  (1)  That  some- 
thing should  be  caught— ca^i  aliquid ;  (2)  and  that  quickly— 
et  cito;  (3)  that  there  should  be  money  in  a  fish — in  pisce  fore 
pecuniam;  (4)  and  that  in  the  first  ^^\\—eamque  in  pisce  jjrimo; 
(5)  that  the  sum  should  be  just  what  was  needed— 7iummum 
fore  tmiti  quantum  opus  esset;  (6)  that  it  should  be  in  the  fish's 
mouth— /ore  in  piscis  ore.  Therefore  the  fish  was  commanded 
(or  constrained)  to  bring  a  stater  or  four-drachm  coin,  that  very 
moment,  from  the  bottom  of  the  sea. 

The  miracle  illustrates  very  impressively  Psalm  viii.  8,  before 
referred  to,  and  taken  in  connection  with  others  before  remarked 
upon,  shows  that  we  are  to  understand  the  words  of  David  lite- 
rally, and  in  their  fullest  sense.  "  Thou  madest  him  to  have 
dominion  (absolute)  over  the  works  of  thy  hands;  thou  hast  put 
all  things  under  his  feet — all  sheep  and  oxen ;  yea,  and  the 
beasts  of  the  field;  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and  the  fish  of  the  sea; 
and  whatsoever  passeth  through  the  paths  of  the  sea.'' 

Matt,  xviii.  1.  "At  the  same  time  came  the  disciples  unto 
Jesus,  saying,  Who  is  the  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven?" 
[of  the  heavens.] 

Mark  informs  us,  ix.  33,  of  a  dispute  which  had  arisen 
among  them,  Avhen  they  were  apart  from  the  Lord;  about 
which  he  questioned  them,  but  they  were  unwilling,  for  some 
cause,  to  mention  the  subject  of  it.  Luke,  although  less  par- 
ticular in  some  respects,  represents  the  Saviour  as  having  come 
to  the  knowledge  of  it  through  his  knowledge  of  their  hearts. 
Luke  ix.  47.  The  disciples,  it  is  evident,  were  confidently 
expecting  the  coming  of  their  Lord's  kingdom  at  that  time; 
and,  as  they  had  been  especially  chosen  to  follow  him,  they 
took  it  for  granted  that  they  all  would  have  distinguished 
places  in  it.  They  expected,  also,  that  there  would  be  dis- 
tinctions made  between  themselves,  and  the  question  was,  who 
of  them  should  be  the  greatest.  Evidently  they  supposed,  that 
by  privately  discussing  the  matter  among  themselves,  when 
Jesus  was  not  immediately  present,  they  could  prevent  his 
knowing  anything  about  their  ambitious  aspirations,  which 
shows  how  imperfectly  they  understood  the  character  of  their 
Master.  It  is  important  that  we  should  properly  appreciate 
the  character  of  the  disciples,  so  as  not  to  overestimate  either 
their  piety  or  knowledge,  in  order  that  we  may  properly  under- 


196  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

stand  our  Lord's  instructions  to  them  and  his  method  of  deal- 
ing with  them.  No  fact  is  clearer  than  that  the  apostles, 
during  our  Lord's  personal  ministry,  and  until  they  were 
inspired  hy  the  Holy  Spirit,  entertained  very  limited  and  very 
erroneous  views  upon  many  subjects  which,  to  us,  appear  too 
plain  to  be  misunderstood. 

Matt,  xviii.  2,  3.  "And  Jesus  called  a  little  child  unto 
him,  and  set  him  in  the  midst  of  them"  [and  having  taken  him 
in  his  arms,  he  said  unto  them,  Mark  ix.  36,]  "Verily,  I  say 
unto  you,  except  ye  be  converted  and  become  as  little  children, 
ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 

It  is  manifest  from  this  verse  that  the  apostles,  at  that  time, 
were  very  far  from  being  fit  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  yet 
they  were,  excepting  Judas,  all  elected  and  chosen  of  God  to 
eternal  life.  Luke  x.  20 ;  John  vi.  70.  The  mere  choice  of 
them  by  the  Saviour  to  be  his  apostles,  and  the  future  stew\ards 
of  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom,  included,  we  may  believe, 
their  election  to  eternal  life.  Yet  to  Peter,  to  whom  the 
Father  had  revealed  the  mystery  of  the  incarnation,  the 
Saviour  addressed  similar  words,  after  foretelling  his  apostacy : 
"When  thou  art  converted,  strengthen  thy  brethren."  Luke 
xxii.  32.  On  this  occasion  our  Lord  impressively  taught  them, 
that  the  road  to  greatness  lay  in  the  direction  opposite  to  that 
their  eyes  were  turned  to.  Their  views  must  undergo  a  change 
equal  to  that  of  transforming  a  worldly,  ambitious  man,  doting 
on  worldly  distinctions  and  glory,  into  a  little  child,  who  cannot 
even  understand  what  such  glory  and  distinctions  are,  and  has 
no  thought  or  desire  to  possess  them. 

What  a  picture  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  here  given  ! 
Nothing  indeed  is  said  directly  of  the  kingdom  itself,  but  only 
of  the  spirit  of  its  inhabitants.  Men  must  unlearn,  as  it  were, 
their  whole  education,  and  be  brought  back  to  the  simplicity  of 
childhood,  to  have  the  first  qualification  for  the  kingdom  of 
God,  in  which  Love  is  the  centralizing  or  cementing  power. 
Col.  iii.  14,  and  Rule  is  service ;  and  the  highest  rule  the 
humblest  service.  John  xiii.  14 — 16;  Mark  ix.  35;  Matt.  xx. 
26—28. 

The  word  {axpaip-qzi)  translated  in  this  place,  and  also  in 
Luke  xxii.  32,  converted^  is  not  that  which  is  commonly  used  in 
the  New  Testament  to  denote  a  change  of  heart.  Matt.  iii.  2 ; 
iv.  17 ;  xi.  20,  21 ;  xii.  41,  or  of  the  mind,  see  Matt.  v.  39 ; 
vii.  6;  xvi.  23;  xviii.  3,  yet  the  circumstances  of  the  occasion, 
and  what  our  Lord  did  say  to  them,  imply  that  they  needed  it. 
And  it  magnifies  the  power  and  goodness  of  the  Saviour  that 
he  not  only  bore  with  his  disciples,  but  kept  them  from  falling 
away  from  him,  notwithstanding  their  carnal  views  and  unsauc- 


THOSE  LIKE  LITTLE  CHILDREN  TO  BE  THE  GREATEST.      197 

tlfied  affections.  He  had  taken  them  from  the  humble  walks 
of  life,  and  although  unlearned,  they  had  derived  their  notions 
of  things  from  the  more  elevated  classes  of  their  countrymen, 
and  no  doubt  esteemed  those  things  great  and  desirable,  -which 
the  great  men  of  the  nation  so  esteemed.  He  taught  them 
many  things  concerning  himself  which  were  utterly  at  variance 
with  their  expectations,  and  without  the  illuminating,  convert- 
ing, and  strengthening  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  attached 
them  to  his  person — preserved  them  (the  son  of  perdition  only 
excepted)  amidst  all  the  scandals  and  temptations  to  which  they 
were  exposed,  to  the  end  of  his  ministry;  and  then,  as  it  were, 
handed  them  over  to  the  Holy  Spirit  to  convert,  enlighten, 
sanctify,  and  preserve,  till  they  should  seal  their  testimony  Avith 
their  blood.     See  notes  on  Acts  ii.  1. 

Matt,  xviii.  4,  5.  "  Whosoever,  therefore,  shall  humble 
himself  as  this  little  child"  [meaning  the  child  he  then  held  in 
his  arms,  Mark  ix.  36,  37,]  "  the  same  is  greatest  in  the  king- 
dom of  heaven ;  and  whosoever  shall  receive  one  such  little 
child  in  my  name,  receiveth  me."  Mark  adds:  "And  who- 
soever receiveth  me,  receiveth  not  me"  [only]  "but  him"  [also] 
"that  sent  me."     Mark  ix.  37. 

The  primary  object  of  our  Lord,  on  this  occasion,  was  to  cor- 
rect the  ambitious  views  of  the  apostles.  He  taught  them  they 
must  lay  them  aside,  and  become  like  that  little  child,  in  order 
to  obtain  even  an  entrance  into  the  kingdom,  the  chief  places  of 
which  they  coveted.  But  incidentally  he  taught  them  also, 
that  little  children  were  peculiarly  dear  to  him,  and  not  only 
that,  but  that  little  children,  like  the  one  he  held  in  his  arms 
before  them,  were,  and  would  be  received  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  This  is  more  plainly  declared  in  Matt.  xix.  14 ;  Mark 
X.  14 ;  Luke  xviii.  16.  It  would  be  incongruous  to  say  to  the 
apostles,  that  unless  they  became  like  little  children  they  should 
not  enter  into  the  kingdom,  unless  little  children  do  enter  into 
that  kingdom ;  for  that  would  imply  that  they  might  enter  into 
the  kingdom  by  becoming  like  those  who  do  not  enter  into  it. 
How  can  it  be  that  the  receiving  of  a  little  child  in  Jesus'  name 
is  receiving  of  him  unless  the  child  is  his  ?  Can  we  have  a 
stronger  assurance  that  all  children  removed  by  death,  before 
the  commission  of  actual  sin,  are  saved  ?  By  nature,  indeed, 
they  are  lost ;  otherwise  they  would  not  need  a  Saviour.  But 
because  they  are  the  Saviour's,  the  effect  of  his  work  is  to 
transfer  them,  at  the  very  beginning  almost  of  their  being, 
from  the  stock  or  parentage  of  the  fallen  Adam  to  his  own 
stock  or  parentage  as  the  second  Adam ;  so  that  their  gene- 
alogy from  the  first  shall  be  reckoned  from  him.  This  was  a 
great  object  of  his  incarnation — so  great  that  it  seems  to  be 


198  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

represented  in  the  11th  verse  as  the  prominent  object  of  his 
coming,  which  the  apostles  did  not  seem  to  have  any  conception 
of,  Matt.  xix.  13;  Mark  x.  13;  Luke  xviii.  15,  even  after  he 
had  so  explicitly  declared  it,  although  they  might  at  least  have 
conjectured  it  from  their  own  Scriptures.  See  Jer.  xix.  3,  5; 
Joel  ii.  16 — 18  ;  2  Chron.  xx.  18;  Jonah  iv.  9,  11;  and  Numb, 
xiv.  23,  in  the  Septuagint,  a  passage  which  is  not  found  in  the 
Hebrew  text.  According  to  the  Divine  plan,  this  world  or  this 
life,  so  far  as  the  infant  race  is  concerned,  may  be  compared  to 
a  nursery  ground  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  or  rather,  taking 
our  similitude  from  the  parable  in  the  12th,  13th,  and  14th 
verses — the  Father  of  myriads  of  worlds  is  not  willing  that  the 
least  and  most  inglorious  of  them  should  perish.  On  the  con- 
trary, he  takes  infinite  pains  to  recover  it ;  and  not  only  that, 
but  also  to  recover  every  individual  of  the  race  he  planted  upon 
it.  Such  was  the  scope  of  the  mission  of  the  Son  of  Man,  verses 
11 — 14.  He  came  to  repair  the  ruin  of  the  fall — to  restore  the 
human  family  to  his  kingdom,  except  so  far  as  personal,  actual 
sin,  persisted  in,  without  repentance  and  faith,  should  prevent. 
But  this  exception  does  not  embrace  infants  removed  by  death 
before  actual  sin.  How  extensive,  then,  and  how  minute,  is  the 
plan  of  redemption  !  Who  can  count  the  number  of  the  infant 
dead  from  the  beginning?  Yet  not  one  of  them  is  overlooked  by 
our  Father  in  heaven.  He  will  gather  them  all  into  his  king- 
dom ;  but  in  what  orders  or  ranks,  or  with  what  distinctions, 
depends  wholly  on  his  sovereign  pleasure.  1  Cor.  xv.  40,  42.* 
What  our  Lord  said  on  this  topic  amounts  to  this:  None  of 
the  human  race,  except  little  children,  can  enter  into  the  king- 

*  A  strong,  if  not  conclusive  argument,  in  support  of  this  exposition,  may 
be  deriverl  from  1  Cor.  xv.  22,  compared  with  Rom.  v.  12,  14:  "For  as  in 
Adam  all  die,  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive." — "  Wherefore,  as  by  one 
man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin;  and  so  death  passed  upon 
all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned."  Death  was  the  penalty  of  the  sin  of  Adam, 
and  to  die  once  is  the  ivhole  of  that  penalty  ;  so  that  when  death  hath  passed 
once  upon  an  infant,  who  has  committed  no  actual  sin,  it  has  suifered  the 
whole  of  that  penalty.  In  other  words,  the  penalty  was  not  to  die  and  then  to 
be  raised  from  the  dead  through  the  work  of  Christ  the  Second  Adam,  and  then 
to  die  a  second  death ;  but  simply  to  die  once,  Heb.  ix.  27,  on  account  of  the 
sin  of  the  first  Adam.  But  the  Son  of  Man  came  to  reverse  that  penalty,  or 
rather  to  bear  it  for  men,  and  bring  them  to  life  again  by  raising  them  from 
the  dead.  In  this  resurrection  children,  dying  in  infancy,  will  have  part. 
Will  their  resurrection  be  a  blessing  or  a  benefit  to  them?  Most  certainly. 
But  how  will  it  be  a  blessing  or  a  benefit,  if  they  are  raised  from  the  dead  only 
to  die  the  second  death  ?  It  follows,  therefore,  from  the  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection of  the  infant  portion  of  our  race, -through  the  work  of  Christ,  that  their 
condition  in  the  future  state  cannot  be  otherwise  than  happy,  because  if  it 
were  not  so,  the  work  of  Christ  would  be  the  means  of  increasing  the  original 
penalty  to  those  who  die  before  they  are  capable  of  repentance  and  faith,  and 
even  of  committing  actual  sin.  This  argument  is  developed  and  enforced  in 
Russel's  Treatise  on  Infant  Salvation, 


LITTLE    CHILDREN   SAVED.  199 

dom  of  heaven;  tliat  is,  none  but  cliildren,  literally  such,  and 
those  who  become  so  like  them,  that  they  may  be  called  little 
children.  All  the  saved,  therefore,  are  little  children,  either 
literally  such  or  made  such  by  Divine  grace.  It  is  an  inversion 
of  the  Saviour's  meaning,  to  suppose  that  he  primarily  intended 
humble-minded,  child-like  disciples  or  followers.  Primarily 
he  meant  babes,  little  children;  and  secondarily,  his  humble- 
minded  followers,  so  like  them  in  disposition  that  they  might 
be  regarded  as  though  they  were  literally  such.  This  interpre- 
tation shows  the  force  of  the  designation  "little  children,"  fre- 
quent in  John's  Epistles,  and  once  used  by  Paul,  and  once  also 
by  our  Lord.  John  xiii.  33 ;  Gal.  iv.  19 ;  1  John  ii.  1,  18,  28; 
iii.  7 ;  iv.  4 ;  v.  21. 

Matt,  xyiii.  6.  "But  whoso  shall  offend  one  of  these  little 
ones,  which  believe  in  me,  it  were  better  for  him  that  a  mill- 
stone were  hanged  about  his  neck  and  that  he  were  drowned  in 
the  depth  of  the  sea." 

From  his  care  and  love  for  children,  and  the  Divine  purposes 
in  regard  to  them,  the  Saviour  passes  to  offences  or  occasions  of 
sin  given  to  them  by  others.  As  the  receiving  of  them  in  his 
name  is  receiving  him,  so  offences  against  them  are  offences 
against  him,  deserving  the  severest  punishment.  A  large  pro- 
portion of  our  race,  some  say  three-fifths,  are  removed  by  death 
before  they  are  capable  of  committing  actual  sin,  and  of  course 
before  they  are  capable  of  being  offended  in  the  sense  of  the 
text.  Hence  our  Lord  confines  his  denunciation  to  offences 
against  those  little  ones  who  believe  in  him.  For  he  makes  no 
distinction  between  those  young  persons  who  have  become 
accountable  for  their  conduct  and  others,  except  that  founded 
on  belief  and  unbelief — that  is,  between  his  Church  and  the 
world.  Still,  in  the  case  of  children  who  are  spared  to  grow 
up  to  maturity,  there  is  a  moment  at  which  each  first  becomes 
capable  of  committing  sin.  Until  that  time,  they  are  the  Lord's 
in  the  sense  explained.  In  regard  to  every  one  of  them  there 
must  be  a  first  sin,  and  a  first  occasion  of  sin,  and  he  who 
gives  it,  falls  within  this  denunciation  of  the  Saviour.  The  sin 
of  misleading  and  corrupting  children,  or  becoming  the  occasion 
of  their  straying  into  the  way  of  transgression,  we  are  war- 
ranted by  this  passage  in  saying,  is  peculiarly  offensive  to  the 
Saviour.  How  few  think  that  it  would  be  better  for  them  to 
die  a  violent  death  than  to  become  the  occasion  of  sin  to  a  little 
child,  or  to  an  humble  child-like  follower  of  the  Saviour !  How 
few  consider  the  fearful  responsibilities  of  their  conduct  towards 
those  whom  the  Saviour  claims  especially  as  his  own. 

Yet  such  is  the  condition  of  the  world,  and  the  influences  to 
which  it  is  subject,  that  "it  must  needs  be  that  offences  come," 


200  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

verse  7,  and  sucli  is  human  nature  that  offences,  or  occasions  of 
sin,  come  even  from  within  ourselves,  as  well  as  from  the  world 
without,  verses  8,  9.  The  apostles,  and  consequently  all  others, 
might  become  their  own  tempters,  but  in  such  cases  the  Saviour 
required  them  to  proceed  to  extremities,  if  necessary.  "  But  if 
thy  hand  or  foot  offend  thee,  cut  it  off,"  .  .  .  "and  if  thine  eye 
offend  thee,  pluck  it  out,"  if  there  be  no  other  means  of  resist- 
ing the  occasion  of  offence.  Recurring,  then,  to  the  subject  of 
children,  he  repeats,  with  particular  application  to  the  apostles, 
a  caution  already  impliedly  given :  "  Take  heed  that  ye  despise 
not  one  of  these  little  ones,"  enforcing  it  by  the  dignity  and 
excellency  which  the  Divine  regard  and  care  for  them  gives 
them. 

Matt,  xviij.  10.  "  For  I  say  unto  you.  That  thqir  angels  in 
heaven"  [literally,  in  the  heavens]  "do  always  behold  the  face 
of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven." 

This  expression  is  to  some  extent  metaphorical ;  for  God  is  a 
Spirit.  See  John  xiv.  9;  i.  18;  Heb.  i.  3.  "No  one  hath  seen 
God  at  any  time."  Yet  we  cannot  suppose  our  Lord  would 
have  spoken  in  this  way,  if  these  little  ones  had  no  guardian 
angels.  Paul  speaks  of  angels  as  ministering  spirits,  sent  forth 
to  minister  to  those  who  shall  be  heirs  of  salvation.  Heb.  i.  14. 
What  reasonable  objection,  then,  can  there  be  to  this  belief? 
There  are  angels  enough  for  the  service.  Paul  speaks  of  them 
as  myriads.  Heb.  xii.  22.  Even  nations  have  their  angels.  If 
not,  how  can  we  explain  Dan.  x.  20,  21;  and  xii.  1?  The  fact 
that  God  uses  the  ministry  of  angels  in  this  world,  cannot  be 
denied  consistently  with  the  Scriptures.  Luke  i.  11,  19,  26; 
ii.  9,  12;  Matt.  xxvi.  53;  Acts  i.  10;  xii.  7,  8;  xxvii.  23;  and 
see  Deut.  xxxii.  8,  in  the  LXX.  version;  also  notes  on  John  xx. 
10,  12;  and  Jacob  Ode's  Commentarius  de  Angelis. 

Matt,  xviii.  11.  "For  the  Son  of  Man  is  come  to  save  that 
which  was  lost,"  [literally  the  lost  ro  d.7tol(oXo(;.'\ 

Besides  his  mission  as  Messiah  to  Israel,  our  Lord  had  a 
mission  as  Son  of  Man.  At  the  imprisonment  of  John  the 
Baptist,  he  entered  publicly  on  his  mission  to  the  nation  of 
Israel  as  Messiah,  John  i.  11;  at  the  death  of  John  the  Baptist, 
he  entered  on  his  mission  to  the  people  of  Israel  as  the  Son  of 
Man,*  and  he  was  now  engaged  in  the  execution  of  that  mis- 

*  This  distinction  may  explain  Matt.  x.  23,  a  very  difficult  passage.  At  the 
death  of  John  the  Baptist,  we  have  seen  that  qui-  Lord  changed  his  public 
course.  Until  that  event,  the  nation  was  on  their  trial  in  their  public,  political, 
or  associate  capacity.  The  question  for  them  to  decide  was,  whether  they 
would  nationally  receive  Jesus  as  their  Messiah.  By  rejecting  John  and 
allowing  him  to  be  put  to  death,  they  virtually  rejected  the  Messiah  also,  whom 
he  foreran.  John  i.  11.  After  the  death  of  John,  the  Lord  entered  on  his 
mission  to  the  people  as  Son  of  Man ;  and  the  question  then  was,  who  among 


EXTENT   AND    MINUTENESS    OF   THE   DIVINE    CARE.         201 

sion.  Hence  he  said,  The  Son  of  Man' is  come — is  ah-cady 
entered  upon  his  work  of  saving  [to  d-oXcoXo^)  the  lost — an 
expression  comprehensive  of  all  the  effects  of  the  apostasy, 
both  in  general  and  in  all,  even  the  minutest  particulars.  This 
is  apparent  from  the  illustration  the  Saviour  makes  of  his 
meaning  in  the  next  three  verses. 

Matt,  xviii.  12,  13,  14.  "How  think  ye?  If  a  man  have 
an  hundred  sheep,  and  one  of  them  be  gone  astray,  doth  he  not 
leave  the  ninety  and  nine  and  goeth  [go]  into  the  mountains 
[or  leave  the  ninety  and  nine  upon  the  mountains  and  go]  and 
seeketh  [seek]  that  which  is  gone  astray,  [the  strayed  one]  and 
if  so  be  that  he  find  it,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  he  rejoiceth  more 
of  that  [sheep]  than  of  the  ninety  and  nine  which  went  not 
astray.  Even  so,  it  is  not  the  will  of  your  Father  which  is  in 
heaven,  that  one  of  these  little  ones  should  perish." 

The  grace  and  goodness  of  God,  as  well  as  the  minuteness  of 
his  care  and  concern  for  his  creatures,  is  beautifully  illustrated  by 
this  comparison.  It  extends  even  to  one  little  child;  and  would, 
even  although  only  one  were  lost.  But  there  is  a  magnificent 
idea  in  these  verses  which  we  shall  fail  of,  if  we  do  not  consider 
the  extent  and  diversity  of  its  application.  When  we  consider 
the  vastness  of  the  creation,  and  reflect  that  this  world  and  all 
its  creatures  and  concerns,  compared  with  the  rest,  are  but  as  a 
microscopic  speck  in  the  ocean;  and  that  the  Divine  providence 
and  care  are  extended  as  constantly  and  minutely  to  the  Avhole 
of  his  creation  as  to  this  part  of  it,  we  are  lost  in  the  unsearcha- 
ble reach  of  the  Divine  attributes  and  the  infinite  riches  of  our 
Father's  goodness.  Some  men,  of  great  worldly  reputation, 
find  it  impossible  to  believe  that  God  should  care  for%o  incon- 
siderable a  thing  as  this  world,  and  especially  that  he  should 
make  such  provision,  as  the  Scriptures  teach  us  he  has  made, 
for  its  recovery,  even  if  they  could  regard  it  as  lost.  But  they 
err  through  their  ignorance  of  the  Divine  nature  and  attributes; 
nor  do  they  consider  that  the  goodness  of  God  is  concerned  to 
confine  rebellion  and  sin,  if  they  are  to  be  permitted  at  all, 
within  the  narrowest  limits  possible,  consistent  with  his  infi- 
nitely wise  and  glorious  purposes.     The  earth,  diminutive  as  it 

the  people,  each  for  himself,  would  receive  him  as  the  Son  of  Man  and  the 
Sainour.  It  was  to  this  change  in  his  relations  and  ministry,  perhaps,  our  Lord 
alluded,  when  he  said  to  his  apostles,  "Ye  shall  not  have  gone  over  the  cities 
of  Israel,  till  the  Son  of  Man  be  come" — as  if  he  had  said — "Ye  shall  not 
have  gone  over  the  cities  of  Israel,  before  my  mission  to  this  nation  us  their 
Messiah,  shall  be  accomplished,  and  I  be  ready  to  enter  on  my  mission  as  Son 
of  Man  to  the  people  in  their  individual  and  personal  relations.  John  i.  I'l, 
This  explanation  did  not  occur  to  the  writer  until  after  the  note  on  Matt. 
X.  28,  was  printed.  It  appears  to  be  more  satisfactory  than  any  suggested 
in  that  note. 

26 


202  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

may  be,  is  a  part  of  the  vast  fabric  of  creation;  and  man, 
humble  as  he  now  is  when  compared  with  angels,  is  one  of  God's 
subjects;  and  the  honour  of  the  Divine  government  is,  for  aught 
we  know,  as  much  concerned  in  his  revolt  and  the  curse  it 
brought  on  this  little  world,  as  it  could  be  in  the  case  of  some 
greater  and  more  excellent  orb,  or  of  some  more  exalted  crea- 
ture than  man.  Add  to  this,  God's  attributes  of  justice  and 
mercy  may  be  as  gloriously  displayed  in  the  redemption  and 
restoration  of  this  little  world,  as  they  could  have  been,  had  it 
been  the  largest  and  most  glorious  of  all  the  worlds  he  has 
made,  and  for  aught  we  know,  even  more  so.  The  comparison 
in  these  verses,  and  the  application  our  Lord  makes  of  it  to 
the  case  of  one  little  child,  justifies  the  view  we  have  taken  of 
this  subject ;  for,  as  in  the  case  of  a  little  child,  the  grace  and 
goodness  of  God  are  not  less  conspicuously  shown,  because  the 
earth  is  but  a  little  planet  and  only  one  out  of  an  infinite  num- 
ber ;  nor  because  the  object  of  so  expensive  provision  as  the 
incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  is  a  comparatively  little  race  of 
creatures,  whose  absence  would  scarcely  be  missed  if  blotted 
out  of  existence.  Rather  let  us  say,  both  are  magnified  and 
exhibited  more  gloriously  to  all  creatures  in  all  worlds. 

Matt,  xviii.  15.  "Moreover  if  [but  should]  thy  brother 
trespass  or  sin  against  thee,  go  and  tell  him  his  fault  between 
thee  and  him  alone  ;  and  if  he  shall  hear  thee,  thou  hast  gained 
thy  brother." 

Our  Lord  had  just  spoken  of  ofi'ences  coming  from  the  world, 
and  pronounced  a  woe  upon  the  world  on  account  of  them. 
With  these  he  connects  another  class  of  offences,  namely,  those 
which  s^uld  or  might  arise  among  his  followers  who  were 
brethren.  The  world  could  not  be  dealt  with  in  the  way  which 
was  proper  to  be  observed  among  brethren ;  he  therefore  gives 
no  directions  how  to  proceed  when  the  offence  comes  from  un- 
godly or  heathen  men.  They  are  to  be  left  to  the  just  judgment 
of  God.  But  if  the  offence  comes  from  a  brother,  a  particular 
proceeding  is  prescribed,  which  it  was  the  duty  of  his  followers 
to  observe.  So  the  apostle  Paul  appears  to  have  interpreted 
these  directions  of  the  Saviour.     1  Cor.  v.  12,  13.* 

*  The  connecting  thought  appears  to  be  that  above  suggested,  although  the 
■word  {uKiLvSsLKii^a))  translated  offend  is  not  sjnonjnious  Tvith  the  word  {afA.nj.nxm) 
translated  trespass.  Some  critics  suppose  the  expression,  "if  thy  brother 
trespass  against  thee,"  should  be  rendered  "sin  before  thee,"  or  "in  thy 
presence."  However  this  may  be,  the  chief  difference  between  this  and  the 
preceding  verses- (7th  and  8th),  appears  to  be  that,  in  the  former,  the  Saviour 
speaks  in  general  of  scandals,  offences,  or  causes  or  occasions  of  sin  to  others, 
without  discriminating  whether  in  or  out  of  the  church  ;  whereas,  in  this 
verse  (15th)  he  speaks  exclusively  of  sins  or  trespasses  by  one  brother  or 
member  of  his  church  against  another. 


OFFENCES   BETWEEN   BRETHREN.  203 

The  direction  in  this  and  the  next  two  verses,  implies  that 
differences  must  not  be  permitted  to  continue  among  brethren. 
The  sin,  or  the  offence,  must  be  removed,  or  the  rehitionship 
itself  must  cease.  The  overture,  or  initiatory  step,  must  be 
taken  by  the  offended  party,  and  if  it  is  successful,  the  offended 
party  is  to  esteem  himself  a  gainer,  by  the  restoration  of  fra- 
ternal intercourse  and  relations.  We  observe,  in  this  direction, 
a  delicate  regard  to  the  infirmities  of  our  nature.  Our  offences 
against  our  brethren  are  not  to  be  made  public  without  neces- 
sity. A  private  interview  also  may  be  attended  with  success, 
when  one  not  strictly  such  might  fail.  It  is,  therefore,  more 
hopeful,  as  well  as  more  brotherly.  Hence  we  might  infer  that 
the  next  step  is  directed,  in  part,  at  least,  with  a  view  to  evi- 
dence, although  not  Avithout  some  hope  of  reconciliation. 

Matt,  xviii.  16,  17.  ''But  if  he  will  not  hear  thee,  then 
take  Avith  thee  one  or  two  more,  that  in  the  mouth  of  two  or 
three  witnesses  every  word  [the  whole  thing]  may  be  esta- 
blished." [Deut.  xix.  15,  in  LXX.]  "And  if  he  shall  neglect 
to  hear  them,  tell  it  \i.  e.,  r.av  prjua,  negotium  de  quo  agitur, 
Beza]  to  the  Church ;  but  if  he  neglect  to  hear  the  Church,  let 
him  be  unto  thee  as  an  heathen  man  and  a  publican"  [as  the 
ethnic  or  the  publican  is — 6  idurxo^  xac  6  rsAwv-^c-] 

The  interveners,  who  are  to  serve  as  witnesses,  it  is  to  be 
presumed,  are  also  to  be  brethren,  although  this  is  not  expressly 
directed,  because  they  are  first  to  use  persuasion,  and  not  until 
that  fails,  are  they  to  appear  as  witnesses  against  the  offender, 
before  the  whole  body  of  brethren,  which  our  Lord  here  calls 
the  Church.  He  had  before  spoken  once  of  his  Church,  but 
without  any  allusion  to  its  condition,  either  as  visible  or  invis- 
ible, or  any  description  of  its  exterior  form  or  of  its  attributes. 
Matt.  xvi.  18.  Here  he  alludes  to  the  Church  as  a  visible 
body  of  brethren — yet  imperfect,  inasmuch  as  the  precept  itself 
supposes  sins  or  offences  committed  by  one  member  against 
another. 

The  learned  John  Selden  supposed  the  {ecdesia)  Church  our 
Lord  meant  was  the  courts  of  law  which  then  sat  in  Jerusalem ; 
but  he  mistook  the  scope  of  the  passage  and  of  its  context. 

The  word  occurs  in  the  course  of  a  most  important  private 
instruction,  designed  for  the  direction  of  the  apostles  in  the  new 
dispensation,  upon  which  they  were  soon  to  enter.  The  idea, 
our  Lord  does  not  develope.  It  could  not  be  outwardly  realized, 
or  exhibited  to  the  world,  until  after  his  rejection,  death,  resur- 
rection, and  ascension,  and  the  sending  of  the  Holy  Spirit — 
events,  as  we  have  frequently  remarked,  of  which  the  apostles 
had  no  conception.  Hence  our  Lord  borrows  a  word  from  the 
existing   institutions,  in  order  to  denote  a  7ieiv  thing  in  tho 


204  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

earth.*  Heathenism  had  no  institution  analogous  to  the  Church, 
■which  implies  an  association  for  religious  purposes  in  contra- 
distinction to  secular  objects  and  interests.  At  Rome  the 
Emperor  was  both  the  religious  and  political  head  of  the 
empire.  Cicero  regarded  the  augurship  the  highest  dignity  in 
the  State.  The  Flamens  had  the  honours  of  royalty — a  seat 
and  a  vote  in  the  Senate  by  virtue  of  their  oflSce,  the  curule 
chair,  and  a  palace  to  reside  in.  The  Emperor  through  his 
subordinates  took  it  upon  himself  to  apppoint  the  high-priest 
of  the  Jews.  Religion  in  the  Roman  world  was  wholly  a  State 
affair.  Nor  had  Judaism  a  Church  in  the  evangelical  sense  of 
the  word ;  and  we  may  add,  it  was  never  meant  to  have.  The 
religious  and  political  commonwealth,  by  Divine  constitution, 
were  identical.  That  the  subjects  of  either  should  form  a 
society  in  an  exclusively  religious  interest,  independent  of,  or 
distinct  from,  their  political  relations  or  duties,  was  incompatible 
with  the  fundamental  idea  of  theocracy,  and  would  not  have 
been  tolerated  in  the  days  of  David  or  Solomon.  Judaism 
recognized  no  distinction  betAveen  the  citizen  and  the  wor- 
shipper. Every  ungodly  Israelite  was  a  traitor  to  his  Divine 
King ;  and  every  rebel  against  the  State  was  an  apostate  from 
his  religion.  See  notes  on  Luke  xxiii.  30 ;  John  xix.  13.  Its 
express  aim  was  to  organize  the  nation,  as  such,  into  a  king- 
dom of  heaven,  under  the  Messiah,  and  it  was  the  failure  of 
this  aim,  through  the  depravity  of  nature,  so  fa*-  as  that  people 
were  concerned,  which  gave  occasion  for  the  formation  of  the 
Church,  out  of  which,  or  by  means  of  which,  the  purposed  king- 
dom of  heaven  should  ultimately  be  organized. 

The  Church  of  which  our  Lord  spoke  then,  was  to  be  a  new 
thing  in  the  earth.  Its  foundations  were  to  be  laid  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  the  superstructure  to  be  wholly  the  product 
of  Divine  power.  As  in  its  origin,  in  the  land  of  Judea,  it  was 
independent  of  the  Jewish  State,  and,  in  fact,  designed  upon 
its  completion  to  take  its  place,  and  inherit  the  promises  made 

*  The  ■word  \KKM<rtu.  occni's  frequently  in  the  LXX.,  although  the  word  church 
does  not  occur  in  our  version  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  Hebrew  word  most 
frequently  rendered  by  it  is  ^j-jp  (See  Trommius,  Cone.)  rendered  Assembly, 

Deut.  xviii.  IG,  or,  congregation^  Deut.  xxiii.  1,  2,  3,  8 ;  xxxi.  30;  Josh.  viii.  35, 
and  many  other  places.     The  word  my  is  commonly  translated  in  the  LXX. 

<Tw±yaryy\  (synagogue)  and  in  the  English  Version  congregation.  Exod.  xii.  3,  6, 
19,  47;  xvi.  1,  2,  9,  10,  22;  xvii.  1;  xxxiv.  31;  xxxv.  1,  4,  20;  xxxviii.  25, 
and  many  other  places.  It  is  probable  our  Lord  gave  this  precept  in  the  ver- 
nacular dialect  of  the  apostles,  but  whether  or  not,  the  Evangelist  writing  by 
inspiration,  wrote  iUKXna-nt  and  not  a-uvxyayn,  as  most  approximative  to  the  idea 
of  the  Saviour,  and  in  this  he  is  followed  by  Luke  in  the  Acts,  and  by  the 
apostles  in  their  Epistles.  It  occurs  one  hundred  and  fourteen  times  in  the 
New  Testament.    In  Acts  xix.  39,  41,  it  occurs  in  the  secular  sense  of  assembly. 


THE    CHURCH.  205 

to  it  as  the  theocratic  nation  or  people,  1  Pet.  ii.  9;  Exod. 
xix.  5,  6  ;  so,  during  its  increase  and  progress  to  its  final  con- 
summation at  the  second  coming  of  the  Lord,  it  was  to  he  inde- 
pendent of,  and  wholly  disconnected  with,  the  secular  powers 
of  the  world,  because  such  alliances  could  not  accelerate  or  aid 
its  real  progress,  although,  as  experience  has  abundantly  shown, 
they  could  greatly  adulterate  its  purity,  and,  indeed,  convert  it 
into  a  secular  thing,  in  many  respects  not  unlike  the  state  reli- 
gions which  existed  at  its  origin.  Such,  then,  being  the  origin, 
nature,  and  relations  of  the  Church,  we  add:  A  grosser  per- 
version of  the  spirit  and  simplicity  of  this  precept  of  the 
Saviour  can  hardly  be  imagined  than  the  law  of  excommunica- 
tion as  it  was  practised  for  ages  in  the  whole  Church,  and  is 
now  practised  in  some  portions  of  it.  When  this  institution  of 
the  Saviour  began  to  be  perverted,  it  would  be  difficult  pre- 
cisely to  determine.  Selden  affirmed  that  no  man  can  show 
any  excommunication  before  the  Popes  Victor  and  Zephyrinus 
first  began  to  use  it,  upon  private  quarrels,  at  the  beginning  of 
the  third  century.  Hence  he  inferred  it  was  but  a  human 
invention,  which  he  said  was  borrowed  from  the  heathen.  In 
this  remark,  Selden,  no  doubt,  referred  to  the  practice  of 
excommunication,  as  it  existed  in  the  Roman  Church ;  for, 
undoubtedly,  the  sort  of  excommunication  which  consisted  in 
the  withdrawal  of  fraternal  communication,  was  practised  in  the 
davs  of  the  apostles.  1  Cor.  v.  3,  4,  5,  9,  10,  11,  12 ;  1  Tim. 
i.  20;  Rom.  xvi.  17;  2  Thess.  iii.  6,  14 ;  2  John,  verse  10. 

The  cause  of  this  perversion,  whenever  it  may  have  first 
occurred,  was  the  influx  of  false  professors,  and  their  predomi- 
nant influence;  and  this  again  led  to  the  alliance  of  the  Church 
to  the  secular  powers,  and  finally  the  subjection  of  the  secular 
powers  to  the  visible  Church  during  a  period  of  several  cen- 
turies. Virtually  this  was  the  restoration  of  a  state  of  things 
similar  to  that  which  existed  at  the  origin  of  the  Church,  while 
the  Jewish  Commonwealth  existed.  The  true  Church  was  then 
hidden  again  within  the  ecclesiastical  Commonwealth,  which 
had  become  secularized,  and,  like  the  Jewish  and  Roman 
States,  persecuting. 

At  the  Reformation,  a  large  proportion  of  the  true  Church 
was  excommunicated  from  the  visible  Church,  including  many 
pious  ministers.  Yet  they  lost  neither  their  standing  nor  their 
authority  as  ministers  of  Christ:  for  he  is  the  great  Architect 
of  the  Church.  Matt.  xvi.  18.  From  him  they  derived  their 
authority,  and  by  his  blessing  he  manifested  his  approval  of 
their  work.  The  true  Church,  by  which  Ave  mean  the  body  of 
the  elect  which  the  Lord  will  receive  to  himself,  was  no  less  one 
after  the  Reformation  than  it  was  before:  for  the  true  Church 


206  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

is  not  and  never  has  been  identical  with  the  visible  Church, 
even  in  its  purest  form,  as  is  proved  by  the  character  of  the 
visible  Church,  even  in  the  days  of  the  apostles.  See  notes  on 
Acts  ii.  47. 

Matt,  xviii.  18.  "Verily  I  say  unto  you,  Whatsoever  ye 
shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  ye 
shall  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven." 

This  verse  has  already  been,  to  some  extent,  remarked  upon. 
See  notes  on  Matt.  xvi.  19.  It  is  to  be  read  in  connection  with 
the  preceding  verse,  which,  although  of  general  application,  is 
in  its  form  addressed  to  the  apostles,  as  if  personal  to  them. 
Our  Lord  did  not  give  it  a  wider  application  at  that  time,  for 
the  reason  already  repeatedly  mentioned,  viz.,  the  inability  of 
the  apostles  to  conceive  of  coming  events.  To  have  given 
them  an  adequate  conception  of  the  multiplication  of  Churches 
throughout  the  world,  even  during  their  lifetime,  it  would  have 
been  necessary  to  disclose  many  things  which  his  Divine  wisdom 
left  to  his  Providence,  and  the  teachings  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
He  therefore  spoke  of  the  {ixxAr^ata)  Church,  as  though  it  were 
a  single  visible  association  of  his  disciples;  and  for  a  period  of 
several  years  there  was,  in  fact,  but  one  such  body.  But  to 
guard  against  the  interpretation  that  the  promise  contained  in 
this  verse,  was  to  be  limited  to  that  one  body  or  Church,  he 
added,  verses  19,  20:  "Again  I  say  unto  you.  That  if  two  of  you 
shall  agree  on  earth  as  touching  anything  they  shall  ask,  it 
shall  be  done  for  them  of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven;  for 
where  [any]  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name, 
there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them." 

This  is  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing  spoken  of  in  the 
preceding  verse,  and  the  addition  of  these  words  proves  that 
the  power  promised  was  not  designed  to  be  the  exclusive  pos- 
session of  any  one  visible  body  of  believers.  It  follows,  there- 
fore, that  each  successive  Church,  or  association  of  believers  to 
the  end  of  the  dispensation,  comes  Avithin  this  promise  as  fully 
as  the  first  Church  that  was  formed  at  Jerusalem;  and  not  only 
Churches,  but  individual  believers,  in  small  numbers,  meeting 
together  without  any  permanent  organization,  are  also  included 
in  the  promise ;  for  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  midst  of  them 
implies  a  promise  to  hear  their  requests,  and  the  promise  of  his 
grace  and  power  to  fulfil  them,  which  moreover  is  expressly 
made  by  the  words,  "it  shall  be  done  for  them."  This  agrees 
with  the  nature  of  the  Church  aa  before  described.  It  is  a 
heavenly,  not  an  earthly  institution.  All  its  real  and  author- 
ized powers  are  Divine,  and  of  course  vested  not  in  any  visible 
body  as  such,  but  in  those  members  of  any  visible  body  or 
Church  in  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  dwells;  for  these  only  are 


THE   DISCIPLINE    OF  THE    CHURCH.  207 

really  included  in  the  promise.  The  being  "gathered  together 
in  the  name  of  Christ"  implies  much  more  than  the  congrega- 
tion or  association  of  those  avIio  have  made  an  outward  profes- 
sion of  faith  in  his  name.  An  association  composed  wholly  of 
unconverted  persons  is  not  a  Church.  To  call  such  an  associa- 
tion a  Church  is  a  solecism. 

Matt,  xviii.  21,  22.  "Then  came  Peter  to  him  and  said, 
Lord,  how  oft  shall  my  brother  sin  against  me  and  I  forgive 
him?  Till  seven  times?  Jesus  saith  unto  him:  I  say  not  unto 
thee,  until  seven  times,  but  until  seventy  times  seven."  See 
Luke  xvii.  3,  4. 

This  question  was  suggested  by  the  direction  our  Lord  had 
just  given  in  respect  to  an  offending  brother,  verse  15.  The 
case  put  by  the  Saviour  was  that  of  a  single  offence.  The 
apostle  desired  to  know  how  often  the  course  of  proceeding  he 
had  prescribed  should  be  pursued.  Our  Lord's  reply  in  effect 
is,  that  the  duty  of  forgiveness,  between  brethren,  is  of  perma- 
nent obligation,  and  he  enforced  it  by  the  consideration,  in  the 
35th  verse,  that  unless  heartily  performed  by  the  injured 
brother,  he  eould  not  look  for  the  Divine  forgiveness.  But  we 
notice  this  passage  chiefly  for  the  light  it  casts  upon  the  nature 
of  the  discipline  our  Lord  intended  to  authorize. 

In  reviewing  this  passage,  verses  15 — 21,  one  thing  strikes 
us  as  very  significant :  it  is  this,  that  our  Lord  should  comprise 
the  whole  of  the  discipline  he  appointed  for  his  Church  in  this 
single  direction.  As  a  rule  prescribed  for  those  who  truly  have 
the  spirit  of  Christ,  it  is  all-sufficient  and  perfect.  As  applied 
to  visible  bodies  of  professing  Christians,  it  fails  only  because 
many  who  profess  the  name  of  Christ  do  not  possess  his  Spirit. 
In  such  cases,  the  rule  serves  as  a  test  or  means  of  discrimina- 
tion between  true  and  false  professors.  It  was  natural  that  the 
apostles  should  afterwards  prescribe  for  the  churches  they  estab- 
lished, more  in  detail,  an  orderly  mode  of  proceeding  for  those 
cases  which  should  come  before  them,  and  indicate  the  manner 
in  which  their  action  should  be  authenticated  and  be  made 
known.  Beyond  this  we  conceive  the  apostles  did  not  go.  The 
voluminous  codes  of  ecclesiastical  or  canon  law  which  have  been 
formed  since  their  days,  have  nothing  to  rest  upon  but  human* 
authority.  They  are,  for  the  most  part,  the  work  of  worldly 
men  in  the  Church.  They  never  could  have  come  into  exist- 
ence if  the  visible  Church  had  remained  pure,  and  had  not  for- 
gotten the  teachings  of  the  Lord  and  his  apostles  concerning 
his  always-to-be-expected  return.  In  framing  these  codes  of 
permanent  laws,  which  it  requires  the  labour  of  a  long  life  to 
comprehend,  the  Church,  or  rather  the  hierarchy,  proceeded 
upon  the  assumption  that  the  day  of  the  Lord's  coming  was 


208  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

certainly  afar  off,  see  Matt.  xxiv.  48,  49 ;  whereas  the  apostles, 
by  not  giving  many  or  minute  instructions,  proceeded  upon  the 
idea  that  they  were  bound  at  all  times  to  look  for  it,  because 
they  knew  not  at  what  hour  their  Lord  would  come  and  take 
the  whole  body  of  his  elect  people  to  himself.  To  the  apostasy 
of  the  Church,  2  Thess.  ii.  3,  must  be  ascribed,  also,  instru- 
mentally,  the  delay  of  the  Lord's  coming,  which  has  given 
occasion  to  the  perversion  of  clmrch  discipline  before  mentioned. 
The  Church  has  not  preached  the  Gospel  to  all  nations,  and  the 
elect  body  is  not  yet  completed.  This  is  one  of  the  mysteries 
of  the  kingdom  which  our  Lord  allegorically  foretold  in  the 
parable  of  the  tares  of  the  field.*  Matt.  xiii.  30,  40. 

Matt.  xix.  24 — 26.  "  And  again  I  say  unto  you.  It  is  easier 
for  a  camel  to  go  through  the  eye  of  a  needle  than  for  a  rich 
man  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  When  his  disciples 
heard  it,  they  were  exceedingly  amazed,  saying,  Who  then  can 
be  saved?  But  Jesus  beheld  them  and  said  to  them,  With  men 
this  is  impossible,  but  with  God  all  things  are  possible." 

This  conversation  occurred  privately  between  the  Lord  Jesus 
and  the  disciples,  upon  the  choice  of  the  young  man  who  in- 
quired what  good  thing  he  must  do  to  have  eternal  life,  verses 
16 — 21.  The  amazement  of  the  disciples  arose  from  their  igno- 
rance, at  that  time,  of  the  plan  of  salvation,  and  the  means  by 
which  it  was  to  be  accomplished.  They  had  no  idea  of  salva- 
tion through  a  crucified  Messiah,  which  our  Lord  here  intimates 
would  be  the  means  of  working  greater  wonders  than  the  pass- 
ing of  a  camel  through  the  eye  of  a  needle.     The  work  of 

*  There  is  a  chasm  in  the  narrative  of  this  Evangelist,  between  the  18th  and 
19th  chapters,  which  the  harmonists  fill  with  several  chapters  of  Luke  and 
John.  Griesbach  introduces  at  this  place  the  entire  passage  from  Luke  ix.  51 
to  xviii.  14.  Newcome  begins  with  Luke  x.  and  ends  with  Luke  xviii.  14  ;  but 
he  transposes  Luke  x.  38,  42,  so  as  to  make  it  follow  Luke  xviii.  14.  From 
John's  Gospel  also,  he  introduces  from  the  beginning  of  the  7th  chapter  to  the 
54th  verse  of  the  11th  chapter.  By  a  reference  to  these  chapters,  it  will  be 
perceived  that  the  break  in  the  narrative  of  Matthew  is  considerable.  Some 
of  the  omitted  topics  have  already  been  incidentally  remarked  upon — such  as 
the  mission  of  the  seventy  disciples,  the  discourses  of  our  Lord  recorded  by 
John  in  the  6th,  7th,  8th,  and  10th  chapters,  and  others  may  be  adverted  to  in 
the  same  way  hereafter.  The  place  last  mentioned  by  this  Evangelist  is  Ca- 
pernaum, xvii.  24.  The  1st  verse  of  the  10th  chapter  informs  us  of  the  Lord's 
(final)  departure  from  Galilee  towards  the  confines  of  Judea  beyond  Jordan; 
and  in  chap  xx.  17,  that  he  proceeded  thence  towards  Jerusalem.  See  Luke 
ix.  51.  What  follows,  therefore,  relates  to  what  our  Lord  said  and  did  in  his 
last  journey  to  and  at  Jerusalem,  upon  which  Luke  principally  dwells.  See 
foot-note  to  John  xx.  19.  This  omission  of  many  of  the  incidents  of  that  jour- 
ney by  Matthew,"  is  accounted  for  by  some  critics  on  the  supposition  that  it 
was  Matthew's  intention  to  confine  his  narrative  chiefly  to  our  Lord's  ministry 
in  Galilee.  It  is  impossible,  we  think,  to  make  a  perfect  chronological  harmony 
of  the  four  Evangelists,  and  if  we  could,  it  would  be  best  to  explain  each  sepa- 
rately; for  in  this  way  only  can  we  attend  closely  to  the  drift  of  each. 


THE    REGENERATION.  209 

redemption,  in  all  its  parts,  is  a  new  creation.  It  is  carried  on 
bj  powers  contrary  to  nature  and  above  nature.  The  end  of  it 
is  to  change  nature  and  restore  it  from  its  fallen  condition  by 
powers  of  a  higher  order.  Rightly  considered,  there  is  no 
hyperbole  in  our  Lord's  comparison  ;  for  it  amounts  simply  to 
this:  "Fallen  nature  has  no  self-restoring  power.  It  cannot 
bring  itself  back  to  the  state  it  was  in  before  the  fall.  No 
proposition,  involving  a  mere  physical  impossibility,  is  compar- 
able, in  respect  of  difficulty,  to  the  impossibility  of  nature 
(either  physical  or  moral)  changing  itself  back  into  the  state  of 
incorruption.  But  the  power  that  created  all  things  at  first  can 
create  all  things  anew ;  and  there  is  nothing  that  creative  power 
cannot  accomplish."  The  disciples  were  unable,  at  that  time, 
to  enter  into  this  large  conception  of  the  nature,  extent,  diffi- 
culty, and  glory  of  the  work  on  which  the  Saviour  had  entered, 
orof  the  powers  by  which  it  was  to  be  accomplished;  but,  with 
this  idea  in  the  Saviour's  mind,  we  can  easily  trace  the  connec- 
tion between  the  observation  which  so  amazed  his  disciples, 
and  what  he  said  concerning  the  regeneration  (or  palinge- 
nesia)  immediately  afterwards,  in  his  reply  to  the  question  of 
Peter.  What  more  natural  than  to  connect  the  wonderful  work 
of  fitting  a  fallen,  sinful  man  for  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the 
wonderful  work  of  creating  all  things  new !  The  former  is  but 
a  part  of  the  latter,  and  is  included  in  it. 

Matt.  xix.  27.  "  Then  answered  Peter,  &c..  Behold  we  have 
forsaken  all  and  followed  thee;  what  shall  we  have  therefore  ?" 

Peter's  question,  and  the  remark  on  which  it  was  founded, 
were  obviously  suggested  by  the  conduct  of  the  young  man. 
He  would  not  give  up,  as  they  had  done,  his  earthly  possessions 
at  the  bidding  of  the  Saviour,  and  could  not,  therefore,  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  God.  Would  this  be  the  case  with  them, 
whose  conduct  was  the  opposite  ?  Our  Lord's  reply,  as  often 
happened,  was  exuberant.  He  did  not  simply  say,  Ye  shall 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  ye  shall  have  dominion  in 
that  kingdom. 

Matt.  xix.  28.  "Verily  I  say  unto  you,  ye  who  liave  fol- 
lowed me,"  [tacitly  alluding,  by  way  of  contrast,  to  the  conduct 
of  the  young  man,]  "  in  the  regeneration,  when  the  Son  of  Man 
shall  sit  in  the  throne  of  his  glory,  ye  also  shall  sit  upon  twelve 
thrones  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel." 

The  meaning  of  the  word  regeneration  [TraXqjsveaca,)  indeed 
of  this  whole  passage,  has  been  greatly  controverted,  and  some 
critics,  in  the  main  judicious,  have  sought  to  avoid  the  difficulty 
they  find  in  explaining  it,  by  the  bold  expedient  of  expunging 
the  Avhole  verse.  Of  the  genuineness  of  this  verse,  however, 
there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt. 
27 


210  NOTES  ON   SCRIPTURE. 

Matt.  hi.  2.  "  Kingdom  of  heaven"  \^^aadeta  rcov  oupavwu) 
kingdom  of  the  heavens.] 

If  we  adopt  the  hypothesis,  that  the  stupendous  globes  which 
garnish  the  heavens,  surpassing  in  number  our  arithmetic,  many 
of  which  greatly  exceed  the  earth  in  magnitude,  are  the  dwell- 
ing places  [fiouoj,  John  xiv.  2)  of  an  intelligent  moral  creation, 
capable  of  beholding  the  glory  of  God,  and  of  adoring  him  for 
his  goodness,  it  will  not  be  difficult  for  us  to  admit,  also,  that 
the  government  of  this  immeasurable  fabric  of  worlds  is  directly 
administered  by  God  himself — in  other  words  that  the  govern- 
ment of  the  universe,  as  one  vast  dominion,  is,  and  necessarily 
must  be,  theocratical.  Before  Adam  fell,  God's  government  of 
him  and  of  the  world  itself  was  immediate.  Had  Adam  continued 
upright,  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  God  would  have  with- 
drawn from  him,  or  left  his  offspring  to  grope  in  darkness  after 
his  will.     Acts  xvii.  27 — 30. 

Let  us  suppose,  further,  that  each  of  these  unnumbered 
worlds  is  the  dwelling-place  of  a  race  or  order  of  beings  pro- 
ceeding from,  or  some  way  connected  with,  one  common  stock, 
Eph.  iii.  15,  and  all  sinless,  the  loving,  willing  subjects  of  their 
Creator ;  his  laws,  however  communicated,  would  rule  their 
being;  his  will  would  be  done  in  each  perfectly,  as  we  are 
taught  to  pray  that  it  may  yet  be  done  on  earth.  However 
diversified  in  their  form,  structure,  or  condition,  these  worlds 
and  their  inhabitants  may  be,  and  however  various  may  be  the 
manifestations  of  the  Divine  will,  and  although  separated  by 
spaces  vast  beyond  all  finite  conception,  yet  relatively  to  the 
Creator  they  constitute  but  one  kingdom,  called  in  the  Scrip- 
tures the  kingdom  of  the  heavens,  or  the  kingdom  of  God, 
because  none  but  God  could  govern  a  realm  so  constituted  or 
so  vast.  Considered  as  one  kingdom,  the  government  of  it, 
therefore,  can  only  be  theocratical.* 

But  this  world  has  dropped  from  the  sphere  it  was  designed 
to  occupy.  The  curse  of  God  has  come  over  it,  through  sin. 
Rom.  viii.  20,  22.  As  a  necessary  consequence,  the  kingdom 
of  the  heavens  was  withdrawn  at  the  coming  in  of  the  curse. 

*  Camerarius  on  John  xiv.  2,  says:  "o/Vwvautem  non  accipiemus  nunc  dici 
locum  aliquem  certie  habitationis  sed  omnipotentiam  et  imperii  Dei  infinitatem: 
Sic  enim  Tlieophylactus;  olntav  txv  i^oua-iuv  Kai  tuv  uf;^«v  von — /uovsu  autem  sunt 
habitationes  utto  tcw  /Atrnv,  id  est  t  niauendo."  Tlie  Father's  {ciiax)  dwelling- 
place  is  the  universe  of  worlds  which  he  has  made.  Every  house,  (cixof) 
says  Paul,  is  built  by  some  one,  but  h.- that  built  all  things — as  a  house  or 
dwelling-place  (oui:t)  for  himself — is  God.  Heb.  iii.  4.  The  late  Dr.  Dwight 
remarks  (Serm.  xvii:)  "Thus  the  universe  is  the  immense  and  glorious  em- 
pire of  Jehovah ;  an  empire  formed  of  suns  and  systems,  the  families,  cities, 
and  provinces  of  the  vast  kingdom  ruled  by  him,  who  telleth  the  number  of 
the  stars,  and  calleth  them  all  by  their  names." 


THE    KINGDOM   OF   THE    HEAVENS.  211 

Yet  not  for  ever;  for  it  was  God's  purpose  even  from  the  liegin- 
ning,  to  restore  the  worhl  to  its  lost  place  in  creation,  by  ways 
which,  from  time  to  time,  he  gradually  revealed.  The  time  for 
its  restoration,  though  fixed  in  the  Divine  mind,  has  ever  been 
a  secret;  yet,  because  it  is  fixed,  it  has  continually  been  drawing 
nearer.  When  John  the  Baptist  appeared,  this  kingdom  was 
formally  announced  by  him  as  come  nigh  ;  but  the  Jews,  having 
rejected  and  crucified  the  incarnated  King  of  this  vast  kingdom, 
it  was  taken  away  from  them,  Matt,  xxi,  43,  and  for  a  time 
withdrawn  again  from  the  world. 

The  Jews,  from  the  giving  of  the  law,  had  been  subject  to 
the  special  government  of  God.  They  received  their  laws 
directly  from  him ;  we,  therefore,  call  the  government  esta- 
blished over  them  theocratical.  See  notes  on  Matt.  ii.  2.  Yet 
it  was  not  the  kingdom  of  the  heavens  which  they  enjoyed, 
Deut.  xi.  21 ;  that  was  a  much  higher  form  of  theocracy,  and 
such  as  perfectly  holy  beings  only  can  enjoy.  The  race  of 
Israel,  notwithstanding  the  restraints  and  proffered  blessings  of 
the  Divine  government,  Exod.  xix.  5,  6 ;  Deut.  xi.  26 — 28, 
were  a  stiff-necked  and  rebellious  people  from  the  beginning, 
always  resisting  the  Divine  will,  Acts  vii.  51 ;  Ezek.  xx.,  and 
continually  suffered,  on  that  account,  chastisements  such  as  no 
other  nation  has  experienced.  But  the  kingdom  of  the  heavens 
imports  the  absence  of  all  sin.  Matt.  v.  48,  and  all  moral  and 
physical  evil,  Gen.  i.  31;  Rev.  xxi.  4,  and  consequently  em- 
braces within  its  Divine  influences  only  unfallen  worlds,  or 
those  into  which  sin  has  not  entered.  "  That  there  are  such — 
the  residence  of  intelligent  beings  of  incalculable  numbers,  and 
endless  diversities  of  character,  all  supported,  governed,  and 
blessed,  as  the  worlds  they  inhabit  are  sustained,  regulated,  and 
moved,  by  the  hand  of  that  Almighty  Being  who  created  them, 
and  whose  kingdom  ruleth  over  all — there  is  the  highest  reason 
to  suppose."     Dwighfs  Scrm.  xvii. 

This  was  the  kingdom  John  preached,  which  was  withdrawn 
from  the  world  when  man  fell  and  sin  entered.  That  it  was 
not  the  theocracy  of  the  Levitical  economy,  is  proved  by  the 
fact  that  the  law  and  the  prophets,  during  all  the  times  of  the 
Jewish  theocracy,  announced  the  kingdom  of  the  heavens  as 
future.  John  the  Baptist,  first  after  the  fall,  proclaimed  it  as 
come  nigh  again.    Luke  xvi.  16 ;  Matt.  xi.  11,  13. 

Nor  was  the  kingdom  John  preached,  as  many  suppose,  the 
dispensation  of  the  Gospel  to  the  Gentiles;  for  John's  baptism 
and  whole  ministry  was  limited  to  Israel,  and  when  Israel  fell, 
his  baptism  was  superseded  by  a  wider  baptism.  Matt,  xxvii. 
19 ;  iii.  5,  6;  Luke  iii.  21.  See  notes  on  Matt.  iii.  11,  12.  The 
dispensation  of  grace  to  the  Gentiles  was  appointed  because  of 


212  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

the  failure  of  the  dispensation  of  the  law  to  the  Jews.  Rom. 
viii.  3;  Gal.  ii.  21.  As  in  the  parable  of  the  marriage,  Matt, 
xxii.  1 — 7,  had  (Israel)  the  first  invited  guests  accepted  the 
king's  most  gracious  offer,  another  company,  elected  and  taken 
out  of  the  Gentiles,  would  not  have  been  called.  Luke  xiv.  15, 
24;  Rom.  xi.  11.  This  last  company,  subrogated  to,  or  substi- 
tuted in,  the  place  of  those  first  called,  will  attain,  by  God's 
grace,  when  their  body,  the  elect  Church,  shall  be  completed, 
that  pre-eminence  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  was  first  pro- 
mised to  Israel,  1  Pet.  ii.  9 ;  Exod.  xix.  5,  6,  conditionally  on 
their  obedience.  It  results,  therefore,  that  both  the  economy 
of  law  and  the  economy  of  grace  were  designed  to  be  introduc- 
tory to  the  kingdom  of  the  heavens.  John  preached  a  kingdom 
which  is  yet  future,  but  would  have  come  in  his  day,  had  Israel 
accepted  it  with  the  obedience  of  the  heart  to  its  appointed 
king.  We  preach  the  same  kingdom  as  still  future,  to  Jew  and 
Gentile  alike,  while  the  Spirit  seals  those  who  believe,  and  will 
continue  to  do  so  till  the  aggregate  of  the  elect  of  God  shall 
be  accomplished,  and  another  chosen  generation  and  truly  royal 
priesthood,  1  Pet.  ii.  9,  shall  be  made  ready  to  show  forth  the 
praises  of  Jehovah  Jesus,  the  second  Adam — the  Restorer  of 
the  kingdom,  and  its  anointed  King. 

It  can  be  shown,  that  along  with  the  setting  up  of  the  king- 
dom of  Messiah,  the  Jews  expected  the  end  of  the  whole  present 
condition  of  human  things,  and  also  the  resurrection  of  the  pious 
dead.  See  Koppe's  Excursus  I.  to  2  Epist.  Thess.,  for  valuable 
thoughts  on  this  formula,  though  he  falls  short  of  the  concep- 
tion this  note  is  designed  to  set  forth.  Also,  Lightfoot  on  Matt, 
xxiv.  3. 

Bloomfield  [Crit.  Big.)  on  Matt.  xix.  28,  remarks,  "There  is 
scarcely  any  passage,  the  meaning  of  which  has  been  more  con- 
troverted." This  seems  strange;  for  the  idea  expressed  by  the 
Saviour  must  have  been  familiar  to  the  disciples,  and  of  course  to 
the  Jewish  mind.  Why  cannot  we  also  apprehend  it  ?  It  has 
been  remarked,  notes  on  Matt.  iii.  2,  that  along  with  the  setting 
up  of  the  kingdom  of  Messiah,  the  Jews  expected  the  end  of  the 
whole  present  condition  of  human  things.  This  would  necessarily 
result  from  the  nature  and  glory  of  Messiah's  kingdom,  or  the 
kingdom  of  the  heavens,  which  is  the  same  thing.  Dan.  ii.  44; 
vii.  22,  27.  They  expected  in  fact  a  renovation,  or  what  our 
Lord  here  expresses  by  the  word  {TzaXcyyevema)  palingenesia,  a 
second  generation  or  creation  {zaXcv  yeveac^)  much  more  glorious 
than  the  present — a  new  world,  in  fact,  in  which  all  the  glori- 
ous predictions  of  their  prophets  should  be  fully  realized,  Isa. 
Ixv.  17,  25 ;  2  Pet.  iii.  13 ;  Rev.  xxi.  5,  over  which  Messiah 
their  Prince  would  reign.    Ps.  ii.  6,  12.     With  this  conception 


THE   REGENERATION    OR   PALINGENESIA.  213 

our  Lord's  language  in  the  verse  we  are  considering  agrees. 
To  Pilate  he  said:  "My  kingdom  is  not  from  hence;  it  is  not 
of  this  world — it  cannot  consist  together  with  this  condition  of 
things;  my  servants  do  not  strive  for  place  or  power  in  it." 
To  his  disciples  he  said:  "In  the  regeneration,  {■KaXcyysvBaca) 
when  the  Son  of  Man  shall  sit  on  the  throne  of  his  glory,  ye 
also  shall  sit  upon  thrones,"  &c. 

The  regeneration  (or  palingenesia),  and  the  kingdom  of  the 
heavens,  then,  are  related  ideas,  Luke  xxii.  28,  30 ;  the  former 
denoting  the  order  or  condition  of  things  over  which  the  latter 
is  to  be  established.  They  are  not  strictly  synonymous  terms, 
but  as  they  signify  synchronous  or  co-existing  things  and 
events,  they  may  be  interchangeably  used.  The  palingenesia 
is  another  name  for  the  new  heavens  and  new  earth,  Isa. 
Ixv.  17;  2  Pet.  iii.  13,  or  for  the  world  to  come  (ocxoo/Mvrjv  ttjv 
fie).Xouaav,  Heb.  ii.  5,)  in  which  all  things  shall  be  created  anew. 
Rev.  xxi.  5.  When  this  expectation  shall  be  realized,  then  the 
kingdom  of  the  heavens  will  embrace  and  bless  the  earth  again 
as  it  did  before  sin  entered  it,  and  as  it  now  does,  and  ever  has, 
myriads  of  unfallen  spheres.     See  Rom.  viii.  21. 

Bengel's  remarks  on  this  verse  are  to  the  point,  and'  striking: 
"Nova  erit  genesis,  cui  praeerit  Adamus  secundus,  1  Cor.  xv. 
44,  47,  ubi  et  microcosmus  totus,  [meaning  man,]  per  resurrec- 
tionem  et  macrocosmus  [by  which  he  means  the  earth  and  the 
heavens  connected  therewith,  and  all  creatures  contained  in 
them,]  genesin  iteratam  habebit."  He  cites  Acts  iii.  21;  Rev. 
xxi.  5;  Matt.  xxvi.  29;  Tit.  iii.  5;  Luke  xx.  36;  Rom.  viii.  23; 
and  1  John  iii.  2. 

Olshausen  expressly  refers  to  the  connection  between  the 
"Regeneration"  and  the  kingdom  of  the  Heavens.  "The 
Ttalq-ytveoca,''  he  says,  "denotes  merely  the  coming  forth  of  the 
^aadico.,  from  its  concealment  in  the  inner  world  of  the  Spirit, 
into  the  outer  world;  or  the  spiritualizing  of  the  outer  world 
from  within.  The  selection  of  the  expression  nahyjzvEaLa  to 
denote  this,  arises  from  the  magnificent  idea  of  drawing  a 
parallel  between  the  whole  and  the  individual,"  or,  as  Bengel 
expressed  it,  between  the  macrocosmus  and  the  microcosmus. 
"In  Titus  iii.  5,  baptism  {J.ourpov  Tiahyytveacaz)  appears  as  the 

means  which  bring  about  the  new  birth  of  the  individual 

It  goes  forward  from  the  TivBUfia  to  the  final  glorifying  of  the 

atofia.  Rom.  viii Without   distinguishing  the  separate 

steps,  the  term  {iiahyytvzaai)  comprehends  the  whole  in   one 

general    expression Man,   therefore,   as    a   microcosm^ 

appears  as  an  emblem,  prefiguring  every  stage  of  development 
in  the  macrocosm,  and  just  as  it  is  only  in  the  glorifying  of  the 


214  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

body,  that  the  development  of  an  individual's  "whole  life" 
[that  is,  his  TiaXcjyeveaca,  or  regeneration]  "has  its  consumma- 
tion, even  so  the  glorifying  agency  of  the  Spirit  reaches  its 
climax  only  in  the  pervading  of  the  material."  See  an  Esmy 
on  R<' generation  by  3Iaitland,  in  Eruvin. 

We  may  conceive  of  this  great  change  with  equal  propriety, 
as  the  hrinwino'  in  of  new  influences,  ab  externa — as  the  restora- 
tion  of  powers  and  principles  originally  operative,  but  long 
since  withdrawn — in  one  word,  as  the  ^aacXzca  zcov  oupauMV,  or 
paradise,  restored,  or  brought  back  again. 

Such  a  conception  would  be  as  natural  as  the  outward  devel- 
opment of  inward  power,  and  more  agreeable  to  the  form  in 
which  John  the  Baptist  and  our  Lord  first  announced  this  great 
change,  to  which  the  baptism  of  John  had  respect.  The 
baptism  afterwards  appointed  by  our  Lord,  though  different 
from  John's,  has  respect  to  the  actual  coming  of  the  same  king- 
dom, as  well  as  the  resurrection  and  glorification  of  the  elect 
when  their  number  shall  be  completed.  But  as  this  matter  will 
be  more  conveniently  discussed  in  connection  Avith  another  pas- 
sage, we  pass  it  for  the  present  without  further  remark. 

We  add,  in  the  note  below,  some  extracts  from  the  commen- 
tators to  show  the  opinions  of  the  learned  on  this  passage ; 
premising,  that  Dr.  Owen  and  some  others,  see  Boivyers  Con- 
jectures, and  Bloomfield' s  Critical  Digest,  would  expunge  the 
words  (iv  r^  Ttahfytveatd)  as  an  interpolation.* 

*  In  the  regeneration — iv  t«  vxhiyyiviTM — \v  tcd  n.ia>vii7rip^o/u.iva>,  Mark  x.  30;  Iv  tu 
ai'oDvi  ip)(^ofAiva>,  Luke  xviii.  30,  ■which  are  parallel  expressions:  "in  the  second 
generation,  or  creation,"  Triglot,  New  Test. ;  "  in  the  renovation,"  Dr.  Campbell; 
"in  the  new  order  of  things  at  the  end  of  time,  Kenrick,  New  Test.;  "in  the 
new  world,"  Murdoch;  "in  sbbcuIo  novo,"  Fabricius,  Latin  New  Test  from  the 
Syriac  ;  "iterata  generatio,"  A'MmoeZ,-  "in  renovate,  vita,"  Castalio;  "in  ilia 
restauratione  (resurrectione)  quando  Messias  splendidum  suum  tribunal  occu- 
paverit,"  Naebe;  "in  regeneratione  [plena),"  Scbast.  Schmidt;  "bey  der  Wie- 
derherstellung  der  Dinge,"  De  Welie ;  "in  jener  neuem  Verfassung,"  Sloltz, 
Van  Ess;  "  Wiedererzeugung,  Wiedergeburt,  Wiederaufleben,  Erneuerung," 
J.  G.  Schneider's  Lex.  Cicero  uses  the  word.  Ad  Attic,  vi.  6,  to  signify  the 
recovery  of  his  rank  and  fortune.  Josephus,  Antiq.  xi.  3,  9,  uses  it  to  denote 
the  recovery  of  country,  after  exile.  Philo,  in  Vita  Mosis,  uses  it  to  signify 
the  renewal  of  the  earth,  after  the  Deluge.  See  Rose's  Parkhurst  Lex.,  Robin- 
son's Lex.,  Grinjield,  New  Test  ,  editio  Helenistica.  The  Pythagoreans  used  it 
to  signify  reditum  mentis  eic  yinTN,  cum  mens  prius  defuncti  atl  vitam  in  corpus 
alterius  redibat.     Hammond  and  Le  Clerc.     See  also  Adam  Clarke. 

"  H«c  vox  propria  novum  seu  secundum  statum  significat  to  e«  Swripou 
y&ndwM  ««/  uvoLTrKairbhvAi,  denuo  generari  et  formari  ut  aiunt  Grammatici." 
Hammond  and  Clcricus.     Ilesychius. 

Math.  Flacius  Illyricus  notes:  "Regeneratio  significat  illam  gloriosam 
vitam  ubi  erit  plena  hominis  et  regni  Dei  instauratio." 

Simon,  the  Romanist,  translated  by  Webster,  says:  "By  the  regeneration, 
most  of  the  ancient  commentators  understood  the  i-esurrection,  believing  the 
last  jurlgiaent  to  be  here  spoken  of.  It  may  be  said,  likewise,  that  Christ 
speaks  of   his  own   reign.      The   Jews  agree  that,  at  Messiah's  coming,  all 


THE    REGENERATION   OR    PALINGENESIA.  215 

Our  own  conception  of  tbe  {iiahyyzvtaid)  regeneration,  and 
of  the  l^[io.adeca.  zcou  ouf/aviov)  Kingdom  of  the  Heavens,  is  ex- 
pressed in  general  terms  near  the  beginning  of  this  note.  More 
particularly  it  includes: 

(1.)  The  resurrection,  exaltation,  and  glorification  of  the 
Church  of  the  first  born  or  the  elect;  their  installation  as  kings 

things  shall  be  renewed,  and  the  law  shall  receive  a  new  perfection."  See 
also  Liijhlfoot  on  Matt.  xxiv.  3. 

Beza  says:  "  Regeneratio  sumitur  pro  ilia,  die,  qud,  electi  incipient  novam 
vitam  vivere,  id  est,  quiim  animo  et  corpore  t'ruentur  ilia  haereditate  ccelesti." 
This  note  is  translated  in  the  margin  of  the  Old  English  Bible,  Edit.  151)8. 

Pfaffius  says:  "Ad  renovationem  seculi,  mundumque  futuruni  hie  spectari 
tam  clarum  est,  quara  quod  clarissimum :  ita  ut  miremur  esse  viros  qui  existi- 
ment  de  regeneratione  spirituali,  vel  priore  Christi  adventu  hrec  explicanda, 
quern  errorem  hie  et  Lightfoot  erravit." 

Olearius  [Obs.  Sac.  ad  Evang.  Matt.)  says:  "Oninino  itaque  -verissimara 
existimem  eorum  sententiam,  qui  ■7rcLKiry^in<ncLi  Christo  hie  idem,  quod  Petro 
«  Toiv  TTdLiToiv  o.Tri.Ka.'TCLO-T'j.e-i;  est,  esse  existimant ;  h.  e.,  noYam  facieni  rerum 
omnium  in  muudi  consummatione,  quam  delineans  Joannes  olfoLnv  kxivov,  ynv 
KAtnv,  Tratrx  k^ldix  esse  dicit,  et  cujus  regenerationis  pars  est  restitutio  mortuo- 
rum,  per  resurrectionem  ;  quoe  inde  ut  supra  ostendimus,  et  ipsa  ■^a.Kiyytviaux, 
dicitur.  Quam  subordinationem  eleganter  illustrat  locus  Epiphanii : — iva  mquit 
eLuoK  iV  Til  jrat  ryyivi^j'tx  uvacrxa/3t3"«  to  dyyo;  ty  in  ayxa-TX^u  tic  tuv  upyatAV  (piiJeaThTX  i 
Ut  in  TrctxiyyaiTi-t.  rursum  vas  istud,  per  resurrectioneia  ad jrristinam  piUchritudinem 
restituat."  £j)iph.  Ad  Hceres.  xxxvii.  i.  And  see  Thomas  Gataker  in  Noles  to 
Marcus  Antoninus,  xi.  1,  and  Burnefs  Theory  of  the  Earth,  L.  iv.  c.  6,  for 
copious  citations  from  the  Stoic  and  Platonic  philosophers.  The  word  also 
occurs  in  Clement's  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  v.  3,  or  ^  ix;  of  Hefele's 
edit.  Nai2  7ri<no^  iCfii^ii;  Six  tj);  >MTouj!ytx;  adiTcu  7rcikiyyiviaia.v  ma-juai  ainpu^iv  .... 
K.  T.  K.  iSIoah  being  found  faithlul,  Uid,  by  his  ministry,  preach  regeneration 
to  the  world,  &c. 

Df.ylingius  {Obs.  Sac.)  says:  "Nobis  magis  probatur  sententia  eorum  qui 
TrctKiyyivuricLv  banc  sensu  ampliori  exponunt  de  totius  universi  in  die  novissimo 
renovatione  quando  cffilum  novum,  nova  terra,  ac  omnia,  eruntnova,  secundum 
delineationem  Joannis  Apocal.  xxi.  Hffic  Tntxiyytno-iu.  Christo  hie  nil  aliud  est, 
quam  «  toiv  Trufrenv  u7roKctTcicrTu.!ri;  Petro  commemorata,  Act.  iii.  21,  cujus  inno- 
vationis  pars  est  restitutio  mortuorum  per  resurrectionem.  Hsec  enim  initium 
erit,  et  magna  pars  hujus  TraKiyyivKrix^  et  ajrotJtTao-Tao-aec  Trwmmi,  qua  facta, 
Apostoli  in  judicio  extremo  erunt  a-wdfcvot,  testes  et  assessores  Christi,  univer- 
sum  terrarum  orbem,  singulatim  duodecim  tribus  Israel  judicaturi,"  &c, 

MuNSTER  [Crit.  Sacri)  says:  "  Usee  secuuda  generatio  est  resurrectio  mor- 
tuorum, (juando  Christus  gloriosus  redibit  judicaturus  orbem  et  electi  et 
regenerati  ad  gloriam  simul  cum  Christo,  capite  suo,  regnabunt,"  &c. 

Le  Clerc  and  Hammond  say:  "  Apud  Scriptores  sacros,  pariter  usurpatur 
pro  resurrectione,  seu  qutD  fit  ultimo  die,  cum  corpus  restitutum  denuo  cum 
mente  conjungetur." 

CoccEirs  more  briefly  thus :  "  TraxiyyuKrix  .  .  .  hoc  est  quando  fiet  coelum 
novum  et  terra  nova  in  quibus  justitia  Labitet."    He  cites  2  Pet.  iii.  13. 

Jansenius  says:  "Per  regenerationem  intelligenda  est  resurrectio  ex  mor- 
tuis,  qua)  velut  secunda  generatio  hominis  ei-it  secundum  corpus,  quemadmodura 
in  baptismo  est  secunda  hominis  secundum  animum  generatio."  Harm.  Ch. 
c.  p.  717. 

iJioDATi :  "  In  the  regeneration,  that  is  to  say,  in  the  life  to  come,  when 
there  shall  be  a  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth."     Annotations. 

Lamy's  gloss  is:   "  In  renovata  vita,,  in  future  steculo." 

PiscATOR  says:  "Id  est  in  renovatione  mundi  vel  potius,  post  renovationem 


216  NOTES   ON    SCRIPTURE. 

and  priests  of  tlie  Messiah,  into  the  places  of  honour  prepared 
for  them  by  the  Father  in  the  Avide  domains  of  his  universal 
kingdom.  Rev.  ii.  26;  v.  10;  xx.  6;  Luke  xix.  17,  19;  Matt. 
XX.  23;  xix.  28;  John  xvii.  20,  21,  22—26;  Phil.  iii.  21;  John 
V.  2.  Some  of  the  authors  before  quoted  seem  to  consider  the 
resurrection  and  glorification  of  the  elect  as  all  that  is  intended 
by  this  term ;  others  seem  to  include  also,  as  we  do, 

(2.)  The  renovation  of  the  world,  and  its  restoration  to  the 
perfection  and  glory  of  Paradise,  which,  of  course,  implies  the 
expulsion  of  Satan,  of  sin,  and  of  all  physical  and  moral  evil — 
in  one  word,  of  the  curse,  and  the  full  realization  of  the  many 
prophecies  predictive  of  every  conceivable  good,  both  negative 
and  positive,  of  a  terrestrial  kind.  See  G-resivell  on  the  Para- 
bles, vol.  i.,  Introd.  part  i.,  chap.  xii.  pp.  234 — 252,  for  a  sum- 
mary of  these  prophecies. 

(3.)  It  includes  also,  as  we  conceive,  the  restoration  of  the 
twelve  tribes  of  Israel  to  the  land  of  the  covenant;  their  con- 
version and  complete  sanctification  ;  the  re-establishment  of  the 
Theocracy  over  them,  and  consequently  their  pre-eminence 
among  the  nations  of  the  earth ;  for,  from  Jerusalem  shall  then 
go  forth  the  law  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  all  the  earth,  with 

mundi,  in  altero  sseculo  quanquam  nomen  vcLKiyyin(ricL  videtur  potissimum  intel- 
ligendum  de  restitutione  corporum  et  resurrectione." 

Cornelius  a  Lapide  comments  thus:  "Verum  omnes  alii"  (S.  Hilario  ex- 
cepto)  "passim  per  regenerationem,  accipiunt  resurrectionem  comniunem, 
futuram  in  die  judicii:  ha3c  enim,  quia  corporis  totiusque  hominis,  seque  ac 
mundi  renovatio,  et  quasi  secunda  ad  gloriam  generatio,  hinc  recte  hie  et  alibi 
regeneratio  vocatur.  Unde  Syrus  vertit  in  saculo  novo ;  Ai'abicus  in  genera- 
Hone  Ventura:  tunc  enim  erit  novum  caelum  et  nova  terra."  Isa.  Ixv.  17  ;  Apoc. 
xxi.  1 ;  2  Pet.  iii.  13. 

Chemnitz  (Harm.  chap.  132,  vol.  1,  p.  1372)  says:  "Alii  vero  referunt" 
(vocem  regeneratio)  "ad  sequens  verbum  sedebiiis,  ut  loquatur  de  sccundo  sue 
adventu,  ubi  in  novissimo  die,  qui  k  Petro  dicitur  dies  restitutionis  omnium,  et 
mortui  resurgent  omnes,  et  superstites  in  momento  immutabuntur.  Is  dies  hie 
vocatur  t  Christo  regeneratio,  eo  quod  in  resurrectione,  regeneratio  nostra, 
qusB  in  baptismo  inchoata,  et  ubi  anima  ab  omnibus  sordibus  peccatorum,  ab- 
luta  est,  plene  ita  ut,  etiam  corpora  nostra,  incorruptibilitatem  et  immortali- 
tatem  induant  atque  conformia  fiant  glorioso  corpori  Christi."  Philip,  iii.  21. 

But  Grotius,  Hardoin,  Whitby,  Lightfoot,  Townsend,  Bishop  Bloom- 
field,  Goadby's  Illustrations,  New  Testament,  and  some  others,  refer  the  phrase 
to  the  present  condition  of  things.  Grotius,  for  example,  says  that  the  word 
denotes  the  kingdom  of  Messiah,  which,  as  he  teaches,  commenced  with  the 
resurrection  of  Christ — in  other  words,  he  applies  it  to  the  present  dispensa- 
tion of  the  Gospel  among  the  Gentiles,  which  in  his  view  is  the  TraKiyyaitiT-ia.. 
Calovius  says  this  is  against  the  common  consent  of  almost  all  interpreters. 
He  adds  that  even  the  Syrian  translator  whom  Grotius  quotes,  renders  the 
word  seculum  novum,  and  the  Arabic,  generationem  venturam.  See  Calovius  in 
loco. 

Scott,  Henry,  Barnes,  Jacobus,  and  many  others  among  modern  commen- 
tators, on  the  other  hand,  with  better  reason,  agree  with  the  ancient,  in  refer- 
ring it  to  a  future  condition  of  the  world  and  of  mankind,  though  they  do  not 
express  any  distinct  idea  as  to  what  that  condition  will  be. 


THE   REGENERATION   OR    PALINGENESIA.  217 

irresistible  energy  and  power.  Isa.  ii.  Ix.  The  theocracy  from 
that  time  forward  will  not  be  limited  to  a  single  nation,  and 
that  a  sinful  and  rebellious  one,  as  the  Hebrews  were  during  the 
Levitical  economy ;  but  it  will  embrace  and  sanctify  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth,  subordinating  them  to  Israel,  Isa.  Ix.  11 ; 
Mai.  i.  11,  now  made  perfectly  holy,  Isa.  Ix.  20;  Ixi.  3;  Acts 
iii.  23,  while  Israel  in  the  flesh  in  turn,  as  well  as  {za  idvr]  zwu 
acoCofisucov)  the  nations  who  shall  survive  the  judgment  of  that 
day,  Kev.  xxi.  24,  will  be  subordinate  to  the  Israel  of  God,  or 
the  Church  of  the  first-born,  the  glorified  elect,  among  whom 
the  apostles  will  have  a  peculiar  office,  Matt.  xix.  28,  gathered 
by  Christ  their  head  [iu  ro:^  inoupauco:;;,  John  iii.  12;  1  Cor. 
XV.  40,  48,  49;  Eph.  i.  3,  20;  ii.  6;  iii.  10;  2  Tim.  iv.  18)  to 
dwell  with  him  for  ever  in  heavenly  places,  exalted  far  above  all 
angelic  natures,  and  clothed  with  spiritual,  immortal  bodies, 
like  the  Saviour's,  of  surpassing  beauty  and  strength.  John 
xiv.  2,  3;  1  Thess.  iv.  17. 

Thus  the  palingenesia^  a  word  expressive  of  the  great  pur- 
pose of  redemption,  embraces  the  complete  reparation  of  the 
evil  done  by  the  prevarication  and  fall  of  Adam;  the  restora- 
tion of  man,  as  the  inhabitant  of  the  earth,  to  the  dignity  and 
excellence  in  which  he  was  created,  thereby  making  him  a  fit 
subject  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  as  it  was  originally  established 
over  Adam,  and  as  it  now  prevails  in  all  worlds  into  which  sin 
has  not  entered;  and  besides  all  this,  an  accession  of  accumu- 
lated glory  in  compensation,  so  to  speak,  for  the  immense  cost 
of  the  Divine  achievement,  in  the  elevation  of  myriads  of  our 
race  immeasurably  above  the  rank  originally  assigned  to  man 
in  the  hierarchy  of  created  natures. 

4.  It  is  implied  also,  as  we  conceive,  that  this  new  creation, 
being  a  fruit  of  the  redemptive  work  of  Christ,  1  John  ii.  2, 
will  for  ever  remain  before  the  Lord,  perfect  and  glorious,  and 
continue  to  be  for  ever  the  dwelling-place  of  holy,  happy  beings, 
through  an  unending  series  of  generations,  under  the  headship 
of  the  Second  Adam.  But,  as  remarked  by  Olshausen,  the 
"word  ['paling enesia)  does  not  distinguish  the  steps  of  the  pro- 
cess through  which  the  final  result  will  be  reached.  The  great 
Sabbath  of  the  world,  or  the  millennium,  is  blended  in  this 
expression,  with  the  glory  which  (iv  rotq  alcoac  ro:^  eTrep'^ofj.spoc^, 
Eph.  ii.  7)  shall  follow  it.     See  notes  on  Acts  iii.  21. 

5.  Again:  as  the  first  creation  was  wholly  God's  work.  Gen. 
i.  1;  Job  xxxviii.  4;  Prov.  xxx.  4,  so  will  the  new  creation  be. 
This  is  implied  in  the  term  (jsvsai^)  palingenesia.  Whether  we 
regard  it  as  the  second  generation  of  Man  (the  microcosm,) 
or  of  the  earth   and   the   heavens   connected  therewith  (the 

28 


218  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

macrocosm,)  nothing  but  the  creative  power  of  God  can  accom- 
plish it.  Man  cannot  even  commence  the  work  on  his  own  soul, 
any  more  than  he  can  consummate  it  in  the  resurrection  and 
glorification  of  his  body.  Both  the  beginning  and  the  end  of 
the  work  are  of  God.  Yet  the  divine  plan  required  that  the 
offer  of  the  kingdom  and  its  blessings  should  ever  be  made  under 
specific  conditions,  the  rejection  or  violation  of  which  only 
would  or  could  prevent  its  immediate  outward  manifestation  and 
realization.  In  this  manner  the  kingdom  was  promised  to 
Israel  at  the  foot  of  Sinai,  Exod.  xix.  5,  6,  offered  to  them 
when  they  were  introduced  into  Canaan,  and  again  in  the  full- 
ness of  time  by  John  the  Baptist  and  our  Lord,  but  in  every 
instance  with  the  same  result.  In  this  way  God  has  shown  to 
the  universe  the  impotency  of  corrupted  nature  to  recover 
itself;  the  utter  insufficiency  of  a  dispensation  of  law  to  save 
man,  and  restore  the  world  he  made  for  him,  Ps.  cxv.  16,  to 
its  lost  place  in  his  kingdom.  This  view  of  the  subject  shows 
the  ground  and  the  reasonableness  of  such  passages  as  Rom. 
ix.  20,  21;  Eph.  ii.  8,  10;  Isa.  xlv.  9;  Ixiv.  8;  xxix.  16;  Jer. 
xviii.  6;  Prov.  xvi.  4;  Job  xxxviii.  5;  (Wisd.  xv.  7;  Sir. 
xxxiii.  13;)  Prov.  xvi.  4;  Job  xxxiii.  13. 

6.  Finally,  many  persons  stumble  at  the  idea  of  the  personal 
reign  of  Christ,  as  the  Son  of  Man  or  Second  Adam,  simply 
because  they  conceive  of  it  erroneously.  The  proper  idea  of  it 
may  be  gathered  from  the  preceding  observations.  No  believer 
doubts  that  our  blessed  Lord,  in  his  Divine  nature,  now  exer- 
cises personal  and  direct  dominion  over  all  unfallen  creatures 
in  all  worlds.  That  he  does  so,  is  most  clearly  and  unequivo- 
cally taught  in  the  Scriptures.  Col.  i.  15 — 19;  Phil.  ii.  9 — 11; 
1  Cor.  viii.  6 ;  John  i.  3 ;  Rom.  xi.  36 ;  Rev.  i.  5,  6.  But 
when  all  things  on  earth  shall  be  restored.  Acts  iii.  21,  and 
this  world  shall  resume  its  original  place  in  the  kingdom  of  the 
heavens,  why  should  not  our  Lord,  as  God-Man,  also  exercise 
personal  and  direct  dominion  in  this  ?  The  personal  reign  of  an 
earthly  monarch  does  not  imply  his  constant,  visible,  personal 
presence,  at  all  times,  in  every  part  of  his  dominions.  No 
more  does  the  personal  coming  and  appearance  of  Christ 
involve  his  personal  continuance  on  earth  in  his  human  nature, 
at  all  times,  and  his  personal  absence  from  all  other  parts  of 
creation.  Nor  does  the  proper  idea  of  his  personal  reign 
exclude  the  ministry  of  creatures,  whether  angels  or  glorified 
men.  But  it  does  imply  the  .acknowledged  supremacy  of 
Christ  as  king  by  all,  Eph.  i.  10;  Dan.  vii.  27;  John  xviii. 
36,  37;  1  Cor.  xv.  23—25;  Coh  ii.  10;  Phil.  ii.  10,  the  ad- 
ministration of  his  laws  as  the  only  authoritative  rule  of  con- 


THE   REGENERATION   OR   PALINGENESIA.  219 

duct,  and  such  abiding  tokens  of  his  presence  as  will  render 
his  power  manifest  and  his  government  exceedingly  glorious. 
See  Isa.  iv.  5;  Besehamp's  translation;  Medes  Works^  folio, 
603,  4;  Jerusalem's  Gilory,  by  Jeremiah  Burroughs,  p.  65. 

The  word  {TcaXtyytveaca)  regeneration  does  not  occur  in  the 
LXX.  version,*  and  only  in  one  other  place  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Yet,  the  meaning  of  it  is  plain.  It  signifies  the  new 
creation.  The  verse  we  regard  as  parallel  in  doctrine  to  Acts 
iii.  21;  2  Peter  iii.  13:  Heb.  ii.  5;  Rev.  xxi.  5;  Isa.  Ixv.  17; 
Ixvi.  22 ;  xliii.  19 ;  Rom.  viii.  18 — 23,  with  this  difference,  that 
the  Saviour  here  assumes  what  in  most  of  these  passages  is 
directly  taught.  If  the  doctrine  of  the  physical  new  creation 
or  regeneration  of  the  earth  were  not  elsewhere  taught ;  on  the 
contrary,  if  it  were  clear,  by  the  Scriptures,  that  it  is  the  pur- 
pose of  God  to  let  the  earth  droop  and  wither  under  the 
blighting  influence  of  the  curse,  until  he  shall  have  completed 
the  number  of  his  elect,  and  thereupon  to  annihilate  it ;  then, 
indeed,  we  could  not  ascribe  to  this  word  any  such  meaning. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  the  Scriptures  assure  us  that  it  is  the 
Divine  purpose  to  remove  the  curse  and  restore  the  earth  to  its 
original  beauty  and  glory,  it  is  much  worse  than  useless  to  pare 
down  the  natural  and  proper  meaning  of  the  word,  or  wrest  it 
from  its  proper  meaning,  in  order  to  show  that  the  Saviour  did 
not  employ  it  in  its  full  and  proper  sense  in  the  promise  we  are 
considering.  Let  us  pause,  then,  to  consider  briefly  some  of 
the  passages  in  which  the  physical  regenera-tion  of  the  earth  is 
taught. 

In  Acts  iii.  21,  the  apostle  Peter  speaks  of  the  restitution  of 
all  things  implicitly  as  the  effect  or  result  of  the  {nahyxeveaca) 
regeneration  or  second  creation  of  all  things,  because  such  a 
work  includes,  as  a  necessary  effect,  the  removal  of  the  curse 
and  the  rectification  of  all  physical  and  moral  natures.  The 
fundamental  idea  the  apostle  expresses  in  his  second  epistle. 
2  Peter  iii.  13.  In  both  these  passages  he  had  a  reference,  no 
doubt,  to  Isa.  Ixv.  17,  and  Ixvi.  22,  to  which  we  will  now  turn. 
In  these  prophecies  we  find  that  the  prophet  plainly  describes 

*  In  the  Septuagint  version  we  find  the  words  hfi&i^n  ^'i^  ^y  Job  xiv.  14, 

translated  sac  liv  jraAjy  yumiJ.a.i  (donee  veniat  immutatio  mea,  Lat.  Vulg.)  Elias 
Hutter,  in  translating  this  27th  verse  of  Matt.  xix.  into  Hebrew,  adopts  the 
word  nQ-i^ci  from  Job.  In  Bagster's  edition  of  the  Hebrew  New  Testament  the 
word  is  changed  to  n'JjnH'"'  nH'^'^133  which  conforms  more  closely  to  the  Greek. 

Job  referred,  undoubtedly,  to  the  resurrection  of  his  body ;  and  those  who 
understand  this  word  as  signifying  merely  the  resurrection  of  the  body, 
would  probably  prefer  Hutter's  version.  Understood  of  man,  Iluttcr  suf- 
ficiently expresses  the  sense ;  but,  as  applied  to  world,  the  version  published 
by  Bagster  is  to  be  preferred. 


220  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

a  state  of  things  on  the  earth ;  for  he  refers  to  a  city  on  earth, 
to  people  on  earth,  to  employments  on  earth.  He  speaks  of  the 
building  of  houses,  the  planting  of  vineyards,  the  propagation 
of  inhabitants,  different  stages  of  human  life,  infancy  and  old 
age.  He  speaks  of  a  change  of  condition  in  words  which  imply 
identity  of  place.  "The  voice  of  weeping  shall  be  no  more 
heard  in  her,"  implies  that,  in  former  times,  the  voice  of 
weeping  had  been  heard  in  her.  He  speaks,  also,  under  the 
same  conditions,  of  the  perpetuity  of  the  people.  The  seed  and 
the  name  of  Israel,  he  assures  us,  shall  for  ever  afterwards 
endure,  and  be  as  permanent  as  the  new  heavens  and  the  new 
earth.  See  Jer.  xxxi.  35,  37;  xxxiii.  25,  26.  These  new 
heavens  and  new  earth  are,  we  doubt  not,  the  regeneration  to 
which  our  Lord  refers;  and  the  thrones  of  judgment  he 
promised  his  apostles  over  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel  are  to  be 
enjoyed  in  this  new  and  blessed  condition  of  all  things.* 

The  apostle  Paul,  Rom.  viii.  18 — 23,  evidently  refers  to  the 
same  era.  He  describes  the  earth  as  travailing  and  groaning 
now;  but  waiting,  nevertheless,  with  intense  expectation  for  a 
glorious  change.  For  the  creature,  that  is,  the  physical 
creation  itself,  he  says,  shall  be  delivered  from  its  present 
bondage  of  corruption,  and  made  to  share  in  the  glorious  liberty 
of  the  children  of  God.  This  deliverance,  we  conceive,  will  be 
accomplished  by  the  regeneration  of  which  our  Lord  spoke. 

We  understand  Isaiah  vi.  3;  xi.  9;  xl.  5,  as  referring  to  the 
same  era  and  condition  of  the  earth.  Rev.  xxi.  5,  seems  to  be 
a  repetition  of  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah ;  at  least  the  language 
is  so  similar,  that  the  writer  must  have  had  the  words  of  the 
prophet  in  his  mind. 

Those  who  restrict  the  word  to  the  resurrection  of  the  bodies 
of  the  saints,  curtail  its  meaning.  It  includes  physical  nature, 
as  the  passages  cited  prove;  to  which  we  may  add,  Isaiah 
xxxii.  14,  15;  xli.  18,  19;  xliii.  19,  20;  li.  3;  Iv.  13;  xi.  6,  8; 
XXXV.  9;  Ixv.  25;  Hosea  ii.  18.  Even  the  lower  orders  of 
animal  nature  will  share  in  it  (Isa.  xi.;  Ixv.  25;  Ezek.  xxxiv. 
25;  Rom  viii.  19 — 22)  as  well  as  man,  and  the  whole  body  of 
the  elect  church.  Matt.  xxv.  31 — 40;  1  Cor.  xv.  43—52; 
Philip,  iii.  20,  21.t 

*  Many  learned  men,  however,  take  very  difFerent  views  of  Isa.  Ixv.  17,  and 
its  context.  They  all  depart  very  widely  from  the  literal  sense,  but  in  different 
directions.  We  must  reject  all  of  them,  or  regard  this  prophecy  as  one  which 
Elias  only  can  rightly  interpret.  The  real  difficulty  of  these  learned  writers 
is  to  understand"  the  words  of  the  prophet  otherwise  than  literally  as  their  dis- 
cordance proves. 

f  The  word  in  Titus  iii.  5,  if  rightly  interpreted,  has  the  same  enlarged  sense. 
The  apostle  does  not  certainly  mean  that  regeneration,  or  the  regeneration, 
is,  or  consists  in  a  washing  or  baptism,  although  he  alludes,  no  doubt,  especially 


THE   APOSTLES   TO    SIT    ON    THRONES.  221 

"When  the  Son  of  Man  shall  sit  on  the  throne  of  his 
glory." 

In  this  expression  we  have  a  note  of  the  time  appointed  for 
the  fulfilment  of  the  promise.  The  Saviour  promised  his 
apostles  that  they  should  sit  upon  thrones  in  the  regeneration, 
at  the  time  when  he  should  sit  upon  the  throne  which  belongs 
to  him  as  the  Son  of  Man.  The  regeneration  or  palinf/enesia 
he  spoke  of,  is  therefore  still  future.  The  precise  epoch  of  its 
commencement,  as  we  learn  from  Matt.  xxv.  31,  will  be  reached 
"When  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  his  glory  and  all  the  holy 
angels  with  him ;"  for  then  will  he  sit  upon  the  throne  of  his 
glory.  This  is  a  promise,  therefore,  for  which  the  apostles  still 
wait,  depending  on  the  faithfulness  and  the  power  of  their  Lord 
and  Master.  Nor  are  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel  yet  gathered. 
This  is  another  note  of  time,  which  serves  to  establish  the 
futurity  of  the  regeneration.  But  many  interpreters  deny  that 
the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel  ever  will  be  restored,  see  notes  on 
Matt.  ii.  18;  and  although  the  Saviour  does  not  here  expressly 
declare  that  they  shall  be,  yet  he  assumes  it  as  a  purposed 
event.     His  words  are: 

"Ye  also  shall  sit  upon  twelve  thrones,  judging  the  twelve 
tribes  of  Israel." 

All  the  terms  in  which  this  promise  is  expressed  are  very 
striking  and  significant;  thrones — sitting  on  thrones— judging, 
or  ruling  over,  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel — in  the  jmlmgenesia, 
(the  regeneration)  when  the  Son  of  Man  shall  sit  on  the  throne 
of  his  glory.     The  promise  hinges  on  greater  events  than  the 

to  the  renewed  state  of  man,  while  the  Saviour  had  respect  fjeneralhi  to  the 
renewed  state  of  all  things.  The  washing  of  which  the  apostle  speaks  is  em- 
blematical of  tlie  renewed  state  of  man  in  body,  soul,  and  spirit,  the  consumma- 
tion of  which  will  be  brought  about  by  his  resurrection ;  or  the  reproduction 
of  his  body  in  a  new  and  glorified  form  at  the  coming  of  Christ,  which  will 
mark  also  the  epoch  of  the  restitution  of  all  things.  Acts  iii.  21.  Hence  the 
connection  between  the  word  as  Paul  uses  it,  and  the  full  and  proper  sense 
of  it,  as  our  Lord  uses  it.  Paul's  subject  led  him  to  speak  of  the  palingenesia 
only  as  it  respects  man ;  but  the  nature  or  matter  of  the  promise  our  Lord  made 
to  the  apostles,  involved  the  full  sense  of  the  term:  for  the  promise  respected 
the  universal  state  of  things  which  shall  6e,  when  the  Son  of  Man  shall  sit  on 
the  throne  of  his  glory  ;  when,  and  not  before,  the  apostles  shall  be  rewarded 
with  thrones  and  dominion.  To  the  same  period  the  Lord  referred  in  Luke 
xxii.  28,  30,  and  Paul  also  in  1  Cor.  vi.  2 ; — for  in  that  place  the  scope  of  his 
subject  required  it,  though  he  did  not  there  use  the  word  TrtiKiyy^vi^tn.  as  he  did 
in  Titus  iii.  5;  but  his  meaning  is  the  same  as  if  he  had  said  {Oux.  o(V*t«  In 
[sv  Tx  7r*Kryyivi<ria.']  d  ayici  rov  icia-/uov  KfiVMo-t)  :  "  Know  ye  not  that  [in  the  regene- 
ration] the  saints  shall  judge  the  world?"  The  use  which  Paul  makes  of  the 
word  7rAKiyym'7M  in  Titus  iii.  5,  is  an  example  of  synecdoche.  He  curtails  the 
sense,  by  applying  to  man  (the  microcosm)  what  properly  belongs  to  the  world 
(the  macrocosm.)  with  which  man  is  connected;  the  renovation  of  botli  being 
synchronous  in  the  Divine  purpose,  and  the  result  of  one  and  the  same  grand 
scheme  of  the  Divine  operations. 


222  '  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

world  has  ever  yet  witnessed.  The  Saviour  assumes  that  they 
are  all  unalterably  fixed  in  the  Divine  purpose,  and  the  very 
fact  that  he  assumes  them  as  certainties,  shows  his  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Scriptures  which  predict  them.  He  observes  the 
same  method  in  the  promise  he  gave  them  at  the  institution  of 
the  Supper.    Luke  xxii.  28 — 30. 

Those  who  refuse  to  receive  these  promises  in  their  full  and 
literal  sense,  commit  themselves  to  the  work  of  explaining  the 
most  important  prophecies  relating  to  the  destiny  of  Israel,  in 
opposition  to  the  plain  and  obvious  meaning  of  the  language  in 
which  they  are  expressed.  But  all  difficulties  of  interpretation 
disappear,  if  we  but  admit,  what  the  Scriptures  plainly  teach, 
that  the  present  is  not  the  final  dispensation  of  God's  govern- 
ment over  men  on  earth,  see  note  on  Acts  iii.  21 ;  but  designed 
chiefly  for  the  preparatory  work  of  the  gathering  of  the  Church. 
This  done,  the  dispensation  will  be  closed,  and  the  close  of  it 
will  be  signalized  by  the  restoration  of  Israel  to  the  land  God 
covenanted  to  give  Abraham  for  an  everlastiyig  possession — the 
coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  for  the  judgment  of  all  nations, 
Matt.  XXV.  31 — the  resurrection  and  glorification  of  the  elect 
Church,  and  the  inauguration  of  a  new  dispensation  variously 
called,  the  restitution  of  all  things.  Acts  iii.  21,  the  new 
heavens  and  the  new  earth,  Isa.  Ixv.  17;  2  Pet.  iii.  13,  the 
world  to  come,  {rr^v  ocxoujuevr^v  zr^u  [jLtXXooaav,  Heb.  ii.  5)  and  in 
this  place,  the  regeneration^  during  which  the  apostles,  in  fulfil- 
ment of  this  promise  of  the  Saviour,  will  be  entrusted  with  the 
government  of  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel,  but  in  what  manner 
it  is  impossible  for  us  to  conjecture.  See  notes  on  Acts  iii. 
22,  23. 

There  is  nothing  preposterous  or  degrading  in  the  idea  of  the 
apostles  reigning  over  Israel  in  the  new  earth.  The  reign  of 
Jehovah  over  Israel  during  the  theocracy  was  personal.  1  Sam. 
viii.  7.  He  appeared  at  times  in  human  form,  and  he  gave 
them  symbols  of  his  presence  in  his  temple.  But  the  earth 
was  not  then  what  it  will  be  in  the  regeneration  of  it.  How 
can  it  be  degrading  to  the  apostles,  or  detract  from  their  hap- 
piness, to  serve  God  as  kings  in  the  way  of  his  appointment? 
To  depreciate  the  rewards  which  the  Saviour  promises,  or  to 
argue  that  they  are  less  glorious  or  desirable  than  those  which 
he  might  bestow  under  some  different  arrangement  or  ordering 
of  things,  betrays  not  only  great  presumption,  but  a  spirit  not 
unlike  that  which  the  Lord  often  rebuked.  Mark  ix.  33 ;  Matt. 
XX.  21,  26,  27. 

Matt.  xix.  29,  30.  "And  every  one  that  hath  forsaken 
houses,  or  brethren,  or  sisters,  or  father,  or  mother,  or  wife,  or 
children,  or  lands,  for  my  name's  sake,  shall  receive  an  hun- 


ALL   BELIEVERS   TO    RECEIVE   REWARDS.  223 

dred-fold,  and  shall  inherit  life  everlasting.      But  many  that 
are  first  shall  be  last,  and  the  last  first." 

The  promise  contained  in  this  verse  is  distinct  from  that 
made  to  the  apostles.  Among  them  there  was  to  be  an  equality. 
Each  was  promised  a  throne  and  dominion,  and  perhaps  a 
separate  dominion  over  a  particular  tribe.  But  among  those 
who  come  within  the  terms  of  this  verse,  distinctions  of  some 
sort  would  be  made.  Many  first  would  be  last.  Many  last 
first.  The  ground  of  all  such  distinctions,  the  parable  in  the 
next  chapter,  verses  1 — 16,  teaches,  is  the  Divine  sovereignty. 

Matt.  xx.  1 — 16.  The  parable  recorded  in  these  verses, 
belongs  to  the  category  of  private  instruction,  and  m  this 
respect,  is  like  that  in  chap,  xviii.  21 — 35.  It  was  designed  to 
illustrate  the  principle  of  the  Divine  government  announced  in 
the  last  verse  of  the  19th  chapter,  which  is  repeated  at  the 
conclusion  of  the  parable,  verse  16,  with  the  additional  observa- 
tion "that  many  are  called,  but  few  chosen."  This  is  another 
principle  here  declared  for  the  first  time,  and  repeated  at  the 
conclusion  of  the  parable  of  the  marriage.  Matt.  xxii.  14.  The 
expression  occurs  in  no  other  place.  The  scope  and  material 
circumstances  of  the  two  parables  are  different,  but  they  illus- 
trate the  same  principle.  Confining  our  attention  at  present 
to  the  parable  of  the  householder,  we  observe  that  only  one 
class  of  the  labourers  entered  the  vineyard  for  a  stipulated 
reward.  Those  who  entered  the  vineyard  at  the  third,  sixth, 
ninth,  and  eleventh  hours,  engaged  in  labour  without  any  special 
agreement  as  to  the  sum  they  were  to  receive.  They  were  con- 
tent to  leave  their  reward  to  the  householder's  discretion  and 
sense  of  justice,  and  for  aught  that  appears,  the  householder 
would  not  have  employed  them  on  other  terms.  The  first  class 
only,  therefore,  could  claim  the  promised  reward  as  a  debt. 
Rom.  xi.  6.  Another  material  circumstance  is  the  proportion 
between  the  time  of  labour  and  the  reward  bestowed.  Had  the 
reward  been  proportionate  only  to  the  time,  those  who  entered 
the  vineyard  at  the  third  hour  would  have  received  three-fourths 
of  a  penny ;  those  who  entered  at  the  sixth,  ninth,  and  eleventh 
hours,  would  have  received  respectively  a  halfpenny,  a  farthing, 
and  the  third  of  a  farthing.  All  they  received  above  their 
just  reward  was  mere  favour  or  benevolence  shown  to  them,  and 
the  greater  in  proportion  as  their  service  was  less.  Indeed,  the 
reward  bestowed  upon  those  who  wrought  only  one  hour  was 
almost  wholly  a  gratuity  which  they  owed  to  the  benevolence  of 
the  householder.  We  regard  it  as  another  material  circum- 
stance, that  those  who  entered  the  vineyard  last  were  rewarded 
first,  and  those  who  entered  it  first  were  rewarded  last, 
(although  as  soon  as  they  had  the  right   to  demand  the  sum 


224  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

they  had  earned)  so  that  the  benevolence  of  the  householder 
to  those  who  entered  the  vineyard  at  the  eleventh  hour,  was 
marked  not  only  by  what  he  gave  them,  but  by  the  time  and 
manner  of  giving  it. 

We  should  notice,  also,  that  the  whole-day  labourers  are 
represented  as  murmurers,  having  an  evil  eye.  They  were  not 
good  men,  therefore,  and  it  was  necessary  to  state  this  circum- 
stance, in  order  to  show  the  reason  as  well  as  the  occasion  of 
the  householder's  remark.  Nothing  is  said  to  show  the  character 
of  the  other  labourers — whether  they  were  grateful,  or  whether 
they  would  not  have  murmured  also,  if  they  had  not  been  paid 
as  much  or  more  in  proportion  to  the  time  of  their  labour  than 
full  day-labourers  were  paid.  Hence  we  infer  that  the  cliaracter 
of  the  labourers  is  not  a  circumstance  upon  which  the  instruc- 
tion of  the  parable  depends.  Nor  do  we  suppose  the  ijenny  is 
designed  to  represent  the  reward  of  eternal  life.  It  is  material 
only  so  far  as  it  serves  to  show  the  justice  of  the  householder 
to  the  murmurers,  and  his  benevolence  to  those  who  could  claim 
little  or  nothing  as  of  debt.  The  parable,  as  we  conceive,  turns 
wholly  upon  the  character  of  the  householder,  and  the  design 
of  it  is  to  illustrate  the  Divine  sovereignty  in  the  bestowment 
of  favours.  God  is  just  to  all,  and  "gracious  to  whom  he  will 
be  gracious."  Rom.  ix.  15,  17  ;  Exod.  xxxiii.  19. 

It  is  to  be  observed,  that  both  Mark  and  Luke  omit  this 
parable.  Luke  stops  with  the  promise  of  eternal  life,  xviii.  30. 
Mark  adds  to  the  promise  that  distinctions  of  reward  will  be 
made.  "Many  first  shall  be  last."  Mark  x.  31.  The  reason 
why  Matthew  adds  the  parable  is  to  be  found,  it  is  probable,  in 
the  27th  and  28th  verses  of  the  preceding  chapter.  Peter  had 
inquired  what  their  reward  should  be,  who  had  forsaken  all  and 
followed  him.  In  reply,  the  Saviour  promised  him  and  his 
fellow-apostles  peculiar  exaltation.  They  should  sit  upon 
thrones,  and  exercise  rule  over  the  tribes  of  Israel.  The 
reward  of  each  should  not  only  be  great  and  glorious,  but,  as 
we  may  presume,  equal.  Having  made  this  special  promise  to 
the  twelve,  the  Saviour  added  this  parable  in  order  to  exclude 
the  conclusion,  which  other  disciples  might  derive  from  it,  that 
equal  and  equally  great  rewards  should  be  bestowed  upon  all 
his  followers.  Had  the  other  Evangelists  recorded  the  question 
of  Peter  and  our  Lord's  answer,  they  would,  as  we  conceive, 
also  have  recorded  this  parable  as  a  caveat  or  caution  against  a 
false  conclusion ;  but  having  omitted  the  question  and  the 
answer,  the  parable  was  not  necessary. 

If  such  be  the  especial  use  of  this  parable,  it  furnishes  strong 
internal  evidence  of  the  genuineness  of  Matt.  xix.  28,  and  those 
who  would  reject  that  verse  as  an  interpolation,  should  reject 


CHRIST   FORETELLS    HIS    CRUCIFIXION.  225 

■with  it  this  parable  also,  which  no  critic  hitherto  has  been  bold 
enough  to  propose. 

Matt.  xx.  17,  19.  "And  J.esus,  going  up  to  Jerusalem, 
took  the  twelve  disciples  apart  in  the  way,  and  said  to  them: 
Behold,  we  are  going  up  to  Jerusalem,  and  the  Son  of  Man 
shall  be  betrayed  unto  the  chief  priests  and  unto  the  scribes, 
and  they  shall  condemn  him  to  death,  and  shall  deliver  him 
unto  the  Gentiles  to  mock,  and  to  scourge,  and  to  crucify,  and 
the  third  day  he  shall  rise  again."  Mark  x.  32 — 34;  Luke 
xviii.  31—34. 

Our  Lord  having  finally  left  Galilee,  was  now  on  his  last 
journey  to  Jerusalem,  and  probably  had  come  near  to  Jericho, 
and  with  a  view  to  prepare  their  minds  for  the  severe  trials 
they  were  soon  to  undergo,  he  took  them  aside  and  repeated  to 
them  the  prediction  he  had  twice  already  made  to  them  while 
he  abode  in  Galilee,  Matt.  xvii.  22;  xvi.  21,  but  with  some 
additional  particulars.  We  have  observed  that  the  first  time 
our  Lord  forewarned  them  of  his  sufferings,  was  immediately 
after  Peter  had  declared  the  mystery  of  his  person.  Matt, 
xvi.  2L  It  was  also  after  the  death  of  John  the  Baptist.  The 
next  time  was  soon  after  his  transfiguration ;  and  now  as  the 
events  drew  near,  he  recurs  with  solemn  emphasis  to  the  same 
distressing  subject.  On  the  second  occasion,  Matthew  says 
they  were  exceeding  sorry.  Mark  says,  ix.  32,  they  under- 
stood not  his  saying,  and  were  afraid  to  ask  him.  Luke  adds, 
ix.  45,  to  what  Mark  says,  that  his  saying  was  hid  from  them, 
and  they  understood  it  not.  On  the  present  occasion,  Luke 
notices  only  the  efi'ect  the  communication  made  upon  their 
minds.  He  says,  xviii.  34:  "They  understood  none  of  these 
things,  and  this  saying  was  hid  from  them,  neither  knew  they 
the  things  which  were  spoken." 

This  blindness  of  the  apostles  can  only  be  accounted  for  by 
their  full  and  firm  belief  of  our  Lord's  Messiahship,  and  equally 
full  persuasion,  that  none  of  those  things  could  happen  to  the 
true  Messiah.  Their  blindness  was  the  joint  effect  of  truth 
and  error,  which  seem  to  have  taken  equally  fast  hold  of  their 
minds.  Publicly,  the  Saviour,  several  times  afterwards,  alluded 
to  the  same  events  in  a  more  general  way.  Matt.  xxi.  39; 
John  xii.  24,  32;  Matt.  xxvi.  2,  12;  Markxiv.  8;  John  xii.  7, 
and  privately  again  at  the  last  supper  with  his  disciples,  Matt, 
xxvi.  24;  Mark  xiv.  21;  Luke  xxii.  22,  and  in  the  long  dis- 
course which  followed,  related  only  by  John,  xiii.  21,  33;  xiv. 
30,  31;  xvi.  5,  28,  &c. 

The  subject  he  knew  was  harrowing  to  their  feelings.  He 
disclosed  the  particulars  of  his  sufferings  by  degrees,  and  never 
in  direct  terms,  except  on  the  three  occasions  before  mentioned, 
29 


226  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

and  then  in  a  way  to  give  them  no  unnecessary  pain.  Having 
thus  formally  thrice  predicted  in  direct  terms  his  sufferings 
and  death,  that  when  they  came  to  pass,  the  apostles  might 
remember  his  prediction,  and  believe,  we  observe  that  in  his 
last  interview  he  alluded  to  them  only  in  general  terms,  show- 
ing the  most  delicate  regard  to  their  love  of  him.  But  let  us 
notice  the  particulars. 

On  the  first  occasion  he  designated  the  place  of  his  suffer- 
ings— Jerusalem:  He  described  his  sufferings  only  in  general 
terms — shall  suffer  many  things :  His  rejection — by  the  elders^ 
chief  priests,  and  scribes:  His  death — be  killed.  Matt.  xvi.  12; 
Mark  viii.  31;  Luke  ix.  22. 

On  the  second  occasion  he  spoke  of  his  betrayal  or  delivery 
into  the  hands  of  men:  His  death — they  shall  kill  him:  but 
Luke  mentions  only  his  betrayal.  Matt.  xvii.  22,  23;  Mark 
ix.  31;  Luke  ix.  44. 

On  the  last  occasion,  he  names  Jerusalem  as  the  place  of 
his  sufferings — his  betrayal,  which  is  to  the  chief  priests  and 
elders:  His  condemnation — they  shall  condemn  him  to  death: 
His  delivery  to  the  Gentiles — they  shall  deliver  him  to  the 
Gentiles.  Their  cruel  treatment  of  him — they  shall  mock  and 
scourge  and  spit  upon  him,  and  crucify  and  kill  him.  Matt.  xx. 
18,  19;  Mark  x.  33,  34;  Luke  xviii.  31,  33.  On  each  occa- 
sion he  adds  that  he  shall  rise  again  from  the  dead  on  the 
third  day. 

We  observe  this  last  prediction  was  the  most  circumstan- 
tial of  all.  But  there  was  one  particular  which  he  still  with- 
held— who  it  was  that  should  betray  him.  John  xiii.  21 ;  Luke 
xxii.  21;  Mark  xiv.  18;  Matt.  xxvi.  21.  This  circumstance 
most  nearly  concerned  their  own  body;  and  had  it  been  dis- 
closed without  the  name  of  the  traitor,  would  have  caused 
anguish  to  those  whom  the  Saviour  designed  to  spare.  Matt, 
xxvi.  22;  Mark  xiv.  19. 

Of  all  the  events  foretold,  none,  it  is  probable,  was  more 
repugnant  to  the  preconceived  opinions  of  the  apostles,  than 
his  delivery  to  the  Grentiles  and  his  death  by  crucifixion;  and 
for  this  reason,  it  is  probable,  the  Saviour  withheld  them  until 
the  last.  How  could  they  conceive  that  the  Messiah,  as  they 
believed  him  to  be,  who  was  to  deliver  them  and  their  nation 
from  the  power  of  the  Gentiles,  should  be  delivered  into  their 
hands  and  ignominiously  put  to  death  by  them  ?  Perhaps  it  was 
to  this  part  of  the  last  prediction  that  Luke  especially  refers 
when  he  says,  "And  this  saying  was  hid  from  them."  Luke 
xviii.  34. 

But  however  we  may  explain  it,  no  fact  is  more  clear  than 
that  the  apostles  at  this  time  were  profoundly  ignorant  of  the 


AMBITION   OF   THE    APOSTLES.  227 

future.  They  had  no  conception  of  a  suffering  Messiah  any 
more  than  the  rest  of  their  countrymen ;  nor  more  than  the 
unbelieving  Jews  of  the  present  day  have.  The  work  of  redemp- 
tion in  all  its  parts  was  an  impenetrable  mystery  to  them,  until 
they  were  taught  it  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

We  add,  in  conclusion,  that  our  Lord's  demeanour  on  his  last 
journey  to  Jerusalem,  especially  as  he   drew  near  to  the  city, 
was  peculiarly  impressive.      He  led  the  way  with  a  steadfast*" 
purpose,  Luke  ix.  51,  and  the  apostles  followed  with  amazement 
and  fear.     Mark  x.  32. 


CHAPTER     VI. 

Drinking  of  Christ's  Cup. — The  Apostles  not  to  be  ambitious. — Christ  came  to 
serve. — Melchizedec  the  "Son  of  Man." — Christ's  entrj'  into  Jerusalem. — His 
lamentation  over  Jerusalem. — His  expulsion  of  the  Money  Changers. — The 
Homage  of  the  Children. — The  withering  of  the  Fig-tree. — Christ  is  questioned 
by  the  Priests. — Christ's  response. — Christ's  further  response. — The  Nation 
reject  Him. — The  Parable  of  the  Vineyard. — The  Parable  of  the  Marriage. 

Matthew  xx.  20,  21.  "  Then  came  to  him  the  mother  of  Zebe- 
dee's  children,  with  her  sons,  worshipping  him,  and  desiring  a 
certain  thing  of  him.  And  he  said  to  her,  What  wilt  thou  ?  She 
said  unto  him,  Grant  that  these  my  two  sons  may  sit,  the  one  on 
thy  right  hand  and  the  other  on  thy  left,  in  thy  kingdom." 

According  to  Mark  x.  35,  it  was  James  and  John  who  made 
this  request,  and  it  is  evident,  from  Matthew's  account,  that 
they  at  least  joined  in  it,  verse  22.  But  we  may  well  marvel 
that  these  brethren  should  even  allow  such  a  request  to  be  made, 
after  the  promise  the  Lord  had  given  them,  as  well  as  to  the  other 
apostles,  in  reply  to  the  question  of  Peter.  Matt.  xix.  27,  28. 
He  had  promised  each  a  throne  and  dominion  over  a  tribe  of 
Israel  in  the  world  to  come  (palingenesia.)  Yet  not  content, 
they  would  occupy  the  thrones  nearest  to  the  King,  their  Mas- 
ter. We  must  remember,  too,  that  James  and  John  had  wit- 
nessed the  transfiguration,  and  must  have  had  higher  conceptions 
of  the  glory  to  which  they  aspired  than  any  other  of  the  apos- 
tles excepting  Peter.  The  request,  and  the  indignation  it 
excited,  reveal  the  imperfection  of  their  knowledge  and  charac- 
ter at  that  time,  and  with  this  view  especially  we  notice  the 
passage.  One  would  think  that  the  lowest  place  in  such  a  king- 
dom would  be  glorious  enough  to  satisfy  their  loftiest  wish. 
But  the  request  displayed  their  ignorance,  and  so  the  Lord  told 
them.     It  was  made  no  doubt  with  the  full  belief  that  the 


228  NOTES   ON  SCRIPTURE. 

expected  kingdom  was  soon  to  be  established  in  outward  glory 
at  Jerusalem,  and  of  course  before  their  death.  The  other 
apostles,  though  with  less  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  the  king- 
dom, displayed  the  same  ambitious  spirit.  They  were  incensed 
at  what  they  regarded  an  unjustifiable  attempt  to  forestall  the 
most  eminent  places,  verse  24 ;  and  to  this,  the  manner  in  which 
the  request  was  made  perhaps  contributed.  The  mother  leads 
♦  the  way,  as  if  to  prevent  the  failure  of  her  sons,  by  her  influ- 
ence. She  does  not  at  first  specify  her  wish,  but  desires  the 
Saviour  to  commit  himself  by  a  promise  to  grant  whatever  she 
should  ask,  as  if  her  thoughts  and  wishes  were  unknown  to 
him.  While  the  narrative  is  true  to  nature,  it  shows  how  little 
our  Lord's  character  was  understood  by  his  most  favoured  dis- 
ciples, notwithstanding  the  wonderful  displays  of  it  which  he 
had  made. 

Matt.  xx.  22.  "  But  Jesus  answered  and  said,  Ye  know  not 
what  ye  ask.  Are  ye  able  to  drink  of  the  cup  that  I  shall 
drink  of,  and  to  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  I  am  baptized 
with?     They  say  unto  him.  We  are  able." 

The  question  thus  interposed  by  the  Saviour,  before  he  an- 
swered the  mother's  request,  was  designed  to  call  the  attention 
of  the  mother  and  her  sons  to  its  import.  There  was  a  cup  to 
be  drunk  of,  and  a  baptism  to  be  experienced,  before  they  could 
reach  the  thrones  they  coveted.  Such  was  the  plan  the  Father 
had  ordained.  In  answering  the  question  afiirmatively,  they 
answered  ignorantly.  Of  themselves  they  could  do  neither. 
Hence  the  Saviour  confirmed  their  answer  with  a  promise  of 
Divine  power,  as  if  he  had  said :  Ye  know  neither  what  ye  ask, 
nor  what  ye  say ;  but  I  grant  you  this. 

Matt.  xx.  23.  "  Ye  shall"  [be  enabled  by  the  Divine  power 
and  grace  to]  "  drink  indeed  of  my  cup,  and  to  be  baptized 
with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with." 

These  words  we  regard  as  a  promise  in  answer  to  the  mother's 
request.  It  was  not  the  thing  she  asked,  but  what  the  Saviour 
saw  proper  to  grant.  It  was  an  assurance  to  these  brethren, 
that  they  should  be  sharers  with  him  in  sufferings  and  glory, 
see  Rev.  i.  9,  and  an  assurance  also  of  his  Divine  aid  to  endure 
the  one  and  attain  the  other. 

Matt.  xx.  23.  "  But  to  sit  on  my  right  hand  and  on  my 
left  is  not  mine  to  give,  but  [or  except  to  those]  for  whom  it  is 
prepared  of  my  Father." 

By  these  words  the  Saviour  denies,  or  rather  refuses  to  pro- 
mise beforehand,  the  distinctions  especially  requested ;  leaving 
them  to  the  disposal  of  the  Divine  decree,  in  conformity  with 
which  he  would,  in  all  things,  regulate  and  administer  his  king- 


DRINKING   OF   CHRIST's   CUP.  229 

dom.*  This  (23d)  verse  then  contains  a  promise  made  and  a 
promise  withhekl. 

But  according  to  the  common  interpretation  it  contains  no 
promise  whatever — only  a  prediction  of  sufferings,  expressed 
under  the  two  forms  of  "drinking  of  a  cup,"  and  "being  bap- 
tized." The  sense,  however,  appears  to  be:  "Ye  shall  indeed 
drink  of  my  cup  of  sorrows,  see  Matt.  xxvi.  89,  and  be  bap- 
tized with  my  baptism,  by  which  your  souls  shall  first  be 
renewed  and  sanctified,  and  your  bodies  at  last  be  glorified  and 
made  like  unto  my  own  body  of  glory,  see  Philip,  iii.  21; 
1  John  iii.  2 ;  Rom.  viii.  29 ;  but  to  sit  on  my  right  hand  and 
on  my  left,  enjoying  the  first  places  in  my  kingdom,  is  not 
mine  to  give,  except  to  those  for  whom  it  has  been  prepared  by 
my  Father."  See  the  notes  on  Acts  ii.  The  prediction  of  suf- 
ferings is  emblematically  represented  by  the  Avords  "  drink  of 
my  cup."  The  promise  of  glorification  is  involved  in  the  word 
"baptism."  Thus  understood,  the  words  beautifully  illustrate 
the  gracious  character  of  the  Saviour.  The  mother  asked  for 
glory  and  distinction  in  glory,  for  her  two  sons.  The  Saviour 
promised  them  glory,  great  glory,  not  the  reverse  of  what  they 
desired.  See  Luke  xi.  11,  12.  But  it  was  a  glory  to  be 
attained  only  through  sufferings  (drinking  of  his  cup,)  which 
his  grace  should  strengthen  them  to  endure. 

It  is  a  further  objection  to  the  common  interpretation  that 
neither  James  nor  John  suffered  death  by  crucifixion.  James 
was  put  to  death  by  the  sword.  Acts  xii.  2.  John  died,  it 
is  supposed,  a  natural  death,  at  an  advanced  age,  after  hav- 
ing suffered  severe  persecutions.  These  we  may  regard  as  ful- 
filling the  prediction,  "Ye  shall  indeed  drink  of  my  cup." 

Matt.  xx.  24.  "And  when  the  ten  heard  it  they  were 
moved  with  indignation  against  the  two  brethren." 

Matthew,  the  writer  of  this  Gospel,  was  one  of  the  ten  here 
spoken  of,  and  he  records  this  fact  as  an  evidence  of  the  imper- 
fection of  his  own  and  their  character.  They  did  not  even 
understand  the  import  of  the  Lord's  reply  to  the  mother's 
request.  Peter,  who  was  with  James  and  John  on  the  Mount 
of  Transfiguration,  and  who  shared  in  the  common  indignation, 

*  The  interpolated  words  in  the  English  version,  "  it  shall  be  given'^  to  them, 
&c.,  should  be  stricken  out.  Our  Lord  elsewhere  represents  himself  as  the 
sovereign  arbiter  of  the  rewards  of  his  kingdom,  Luke  xix.  11 — 27;  John  v. 
22,  27;  Matt,  xxviii.  18;  John  xvii.  2;  xiii.  3.  The  rendering  of  the  Syriac  ver- 
sion is  in  conformity  with  that  above  given.  See  Fabricius'  Lat.  version,  and  Mur- 
dock's  Erig.  version  of  the  Syriac  New  Test.,  also  Tremellius.  Diodati  interpo- 
lates the  words  sc/rd  dalo;  Erasmus,  continget ;  the  Vulgate,  vohis;  Montanus 
renders  verbatim,  without  interpolation.  The  particle  'ciKKa  is  sometimes 
used  in  the  sense  of  except.  See  LXX.  in  Numb.  xxxv.  33;  Dan.  ii.  11; 
Mark  iv.  22;  2  Cor.  v.  4. 


230  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

could  more  justly  appreciate  their  ambitious  desires  than  the 
others.  Perhaps  he,  of  all,  felt  it  the  most  keenly.  All 
seemed  to  ascribe  the  request  to  the  sons  and  not  to  the  mother, 
whom  they  seem  to  have  regarded  as  the  instrument  of  their 
ambition.  The  effect  it  produced  on  the  minds  of  all,  shows 
one  motive  of  our  Lord,  for  enjoining  secrecy  upon  the  three, 
"whom  he  permitted  to  witness  his  Transfiguration  and  glory. 
It  was  the  favour  shown  to  James  and  John,  perhaps,  which 
influenced  them  to  make  this  request.  But  we  add,  how  dif- 
ferent must  the  views  and  the  feelings  of  this  Evangelist  have 
been  when  he  composed  his  Gospel.  The  Holy  Spirit  had 
taught  him  the  meaning  of  the  Saviour's  words,  and  shown  him 
something  of  the  nature  and  glory  of  the  kingdom  which  they 
all  then  ignorantly  judged  of  by  the  kingdoms  of  this  world. 
The  day  of  Pentecost  produced  a  wonderful  transformation  of 
the  character  of  the  apostles  intellectually  and  morally. 

Matt.  xx.  25 — 27.  "  But  Jesus  called  them  and  said,  Ye 
know  that  the  princes  of  the  Gentiles  exercise  dominion  over 
them,"  [the  nations,  their  subjects]  "and  they  that  are  great, 
exercise  authority  upon  them.  But  it  shall  not  be  so  among 
you;  but  whosoever  will  be  great  among  you  let  him  be  your 
minister,  and  whosoever  will  be  chief  among  you  let  him  be 
your  servant."  Mark  x.  45. 

All  the  apostles  had  taken  it  for  granted  that  the  same 
system  and  arrangement  of  things  which  they  observed  in  the 
world  would  continue  to  subsist  in  the  kingdom  they  expected. 
This  misconception  is  apparent  from  the  passage  just  considered, 
and  our  Lord,  in  these  ve^'ses,  takes  occasion  to  correct  it.  He 
told  them  that  although  they  should  be  princes  in  his  kingdom, 
they  would  be  most  unlike  the  princes  of  this  world,  for  they 
lord  it  over  their  subjects;  but  in  his  kingdom,  placesof  emi- 
nence and  poAver  would  be  places  of  service,  and  the  greatest 
eminence  would  be  inseparably  joined  with  the  humblest  ser- 
vice. As  if  he  had  said:  "I  have  promised  you  thrones  and 
dominion  over  the  tribes  of  Israel,  but  do  not  think  that  you 
will  exercise  it  after  the  manner  of  the  princes  of  this  world." 

"The  great  law  of  my  kingdom,  is  the  law  of  love.  Your 
office  will  be  to  impart  good  to  those  whom  you  will  rule  over, 
and  serve  them,  not  to  be  served  by  them.  In  so  doing,  you 
will  most  resemble  God,  whose  nature  it  is  to  impart  blessings 
to  the  humblest  as  well  as  the  most  exalted  of  his  creatures, 
without  recompense,  which  the  infinite  fulness  of  his  nature 
renders  him  incapable  of  receiving."    Ps.  1.  7 — 14. 

It  cannot  be  denied,  however,  that  this  preconceived  opinion 
of  the  apostles,  while  they  were  yet  unsanctified,  has  greatly 
prevailed  in  the  visible  Church,  almost  from  its  origin,  notwith- 


CHRIST   CAME   TO    SERVE.  231 

standing  these  words  of  the  Saviour.  The  hierarchy  of 
Rome — while  assuming  for  its  sovereign  pontift'  the  title, 
Servus  Servorum  Dei — has  exercised  lordship  over  the  Church 
and  the  world,  after  the  manner  of  Gentile  princes;  and  other 
branches  of  the  Church,  since  the  Reformation,  have  frequently 
lost  sight  of,  perhaps  quite  forgotten,  the  kind  of  dominion  the 
Saviour  promised — even  Avhile  professing  to  follow  this  funda- 
mental law. 

What  our  Lord  said  on  this  occasion  to  the  twelve  apostles, 
he  said  to  all  his  elect  people.  See  Rev.  i.  6;  iii.  21.  And  if 
it  be  inquired,  what  occasions  there  can  be  for  such  rule  or 
service,  and  what  field  vast  enough  for  the  unceasing  employ- 
ment of  their  whole  body,  we  can  only  answer,  we  know  not. 
Our  conceptions  on  these  questions  may,  in  other  respects,  be 
as  far  from  the  reality  as  were  the  conceptions  of  the  apostles 
upon  the  nature  of  the  pre-eminence  they  coveted.  But  as  we 
are  taught  expressly  that  the  happiness  of  the  elect  will  consist 
essentially  in  service,  we  confidently  infer  that  a  service  ample 
enough  to  engage  all  their  energies  will  be  assigned  to  them. 
Luke  xix.  17 — 19.  Something  of  this  kind  seems  to  be  inti- 
mated in  Luke  xvi.  9 — an  obscure  passage — the  precise  meaning 
of  which  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  apprehend,  without  more 
knowledge  of  the  economy  of  the  world  of  Redemption.  See 
Heb.  i.  14;  ii.  5.  Besides,  we  know  that  in  the  "Father's 
house  are  many  mansions,"  John  xiv.  2;  and  to  all  these  the 
dominion  of  our  Lord  extends.  The  creation  is  vast  already, 
infinitely  beyond  our  highest  conceptions;  and  for  aught  we 
know — rather  as  we  have  reason  to  believe,  John  v.  17 — the 
creative  energies  of  the  Divine  nature  will  be  for  ever  employed 
in  enlarging  it  on  every  border.  But  however  we  may  specu- 
late, thus  much  we  know,  that  the  Lord  will  provide  the  means 
of  fulfilling  everything  he  has  promised  or  purposed. 

Matt.  xx.  28.  "  Even  as  the  Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be 
ministered  unto  [served]  but  to  minister,  [serve  others]  and 
[rather  say,  even]  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  of  many." 

Our  Lord  enforces  his  doctrine  by  his  example.  As  Son  of 
Man,  he  was  and  is  the  Lord  of  the  world.  See  notes  on 
Matt.  xvi.  27.  As  if  he  had  said,  "If  I,  the  King  of  the 
kings  and  Lord  of  the  lords  of  the  whole  earth  have  come  to 
do  service  to  the  humblest  of  men — my  creatures,  my  subjects; 
not  to  be  served  by  them ;  you  ought  to  dismiss  these  low  and 
grovelling  views  of  greatness.  My  example,  not  the  example 
of  the  princes  of  the  Gentiles,  is  worthy  of  your  imitation  and 
love."  John  xiii.  15.  His  works  of  beneficence  they  had  wit- 
nessed in  many  forms,  which  they  would  have  been  well  pre- 
pared to  appreciate,  could  they  have  conceived  adequately  of 


232  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

the  majesty  and  glory  of  his  nature.  One  service,  however, 
greater  than  all,  and  inconceivable  to  them,  yet  remained  ;  it 
was  his  sacrificial  work,  to  which  he  referred  by  the  last  words 
of  this  verse — "  even  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many."  See 
Rom.  V.  7,  8;  John  x.  11.  Upon  this  clause  we  add  a  few 
observations. 

The  act  of  giving  or  offering  his  life  as  a  ransom,  our  Lord 
predicates  of  himself  as  Son  of  Man.  It  was  an  act  appro- 
priate in  its  nature  only  to  the  priestly  office.  It  follows, 
therefore,  that  as  Son  of  Man  he  ever  has  been  a  priest  as  well 
as  a  king.  It  was  shown  in  a  former  note,  Matt.  xvii.  22,  23, 
that  as  the  King  and  Lord  of  Nature  he  was  its  Pontiff — his 
sovereignty  and  priesthood  being  commensurate  and  insepa- 
rable. His  relation,  as  the  Son  of  Man,  to  this  world,  as  its 
King  and  universal  Lord,  is  most  explicitly  taught  in  various 
forms.  Ps.  viii.  6,  7,  8;  Matt.  xiii.  41;  xvi.  27,  28;  xix.  28; 
XXV.  31—46;  John  v.  27;  Acts  xvii.  31;  Rev.  i.  13;  Dan. 
vii.  13,  14.  His  dominion  is,  in  the  fullest  sense,  "an  ever- 
lasting dominion,  which  shall  not  pass  away,  and  his  kingdom 
that  which  shall  not  be  destroyed."  When  he  shall  enter  upon 
it  in  outward  glory,  see  1  Tim.  vi.  15,  according  to  this  pre- 
diction of  Daniel,  Satan  shall  have  no  power  again  to  mar  it — 
all  that  is  offensive  to  Divine  purity  in  the  whole  earth  shall  be 
expelled  from  it.  Matt.  xiii.  41.  All  his  enemies,  including 
the  powers  of  darkness  as  well  as  rebellious  men,  will  have 
been  subjected  to  him,  Matt.  xxii.  44;  Ps.  ex. — the  curse,  and 
all  the  evils  it  has  entailed,  cast  out.  Rev.  xxi.  3 — 5,  and  all 
things  restored  to  a  beauty  and  glory  transcending  that  in 
which  they  were  at  first  created.  Over  the  new  world,  the 
Son  of  Man,  as  the  Second  Adam,  will  exercise  eternal  domi- 
nion. The  means  by  which  this  ineffably  glorious  result  is 
now  being  wrought  out,  are  his  sacrificial  work  as  the  Son  of 
Man,  the  universal  Pontiff,  and  Lord  of  Nature. 

If  we  consider,  in  connection  with  these  two  functions,  his 
attributes  of  wisdom,  holiness,  justice,  goodness,  and  truth,  we 
shall  best  approximate  a  proper  conception  of  the  King  of 
Righteousness  and  King  of  Peace,  Isa.  ix.  6,  7,  whom  Paul 
describes  in  the  fifth,  sixth,  and  seventh  chapters  of  his  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews.  By  interpreting  the  names  Melchizedec, 
Meleciisalem,  Gen.  xiv.  18,  the  apostle  intimated  that  the 
principal  thing  to  be  regarded  was,  their  signification;  and  of 
whom,  we  may  now  inquire,  can  the  description  he  gives  us  of 
that  great  personage  who  met  Abraham  be  predicated  but  the 
Son  of  Man?  See  the  notes  on  Matt.  ix.  4,  25 — 27;  xii.  2, 
43—45,  46—50;  xiii.  37—43;  xiv.  18—21,  22,  23,  32;  xvi.  ' 


IS   MELCHIZEDEC   THE    SON   OF   MAN?  233 

6,  7,  13,  14,  15,  16,  27,  28;  xvii.  2,  9,  22,  23,  27;  xvlii.  11. 
Consider: 

(1.)  He  was  without  father,  without  mother,  without  descent, 
or  anj  earthly  genealogy,  having  neither  beginning  of  days, 
nor  end  of  life,  but  made  like  unto  the  Son  of  God.  This  is 
said  of  him,  as  we  conceive,  not  as  the  seed  of  the  woman  nor 
as  the  seed  of  Abraliam,  nor  as  the  seed  of  David,  Gen.  iii.  15; 
Matt.  i.  1,  but  as  the  Son  of  Man,  the  second  Man,  the  last 
Adam,  the  Lord  from  heaven.  1  Cor.  xv.  45 — 49.  As  the 
seed  of  the  woman,  the  son  of  David,  the  son  of  Abraham,  his 
genealogy  is  given,  Luke  iii.  23 — 38;  Matt.  i.  1 — 16;  but  as 
the  Second  Adam,  the  Man  of  the  everlasting  covenant,  he  was 
with  the  Father  before  the  world  was.  John  xvii.  5;  vi.  62; 
iii.  13;  Isa.  liii.  8;  Prov.  viii.  23—31;  xxx.  4.  Of  the  Son 
of  Man,  therefore,  this  description  is  literally  and  fully  true. 

Some  commentators  endeavour  to  evade  the  plain  meaning 
of  these  words  of  the  apostle  by  supposing  they  intend  no 
more  than  that  no  genealogy  of  Melchizedec  is  given  in  the 
Scriptures;  or  that  his  father  and  mother  were  not  of  royal 
rank,  see  Stuart  on  Hebrews;  but  this  mode  of  interpretation 
would  make  strange  work  of  the  Scriptures,  if  applied  to  every 
person  whose  genealogy  is  not  given  in  the  Scriptures,  or  to 
any  other  person  except  the  Son  of  Man.  Concerning  him, 
indeed,  the  inspired  prophet  inquires,  "Who  shall  declare  his 
generation?"     Isa.  liii.  8. 

(2.)  Consider,  again,  what  the  apostle  sa,ys  of  the  priesthood 
of  Melchizedec.  To  be  made  a  priest  after  or  according  to  this 
order,  is  to  be  made  a  priest,  not  after  the  law  of  a  carnal  com- 
mandment, but  after  the  power  of  an  endless  life.  Heb.  vii.  16. 
He  alleges  the  one  hundred  and  tenth  Psalm  as  a  proof  that 
Melchizedec  still  liveth.  Heb.  vii.  8.  His  great  argument 
against  the  perpetuity  and  sufficiency  of  the  Aaronic  priest- 
hood is,  that  men  who  are  made  priests  according  to  that  order 
die;  which  could  not  be  affirmed  of  Melchizedec  and  his  order, 
for  he  continueth  for  ever,  and  his  priesthood  is  unchangeable, 
that  is,  does  not  pass  from  one  person  to  another.  Heb. 
vii.  23,  24. 

What  man,  having  an  earthly,  or  human  genealogy,  could  be 
a  priest  of  this  order  but  the  promised  seed  of  the  woman,  the 
seed  of  Abraham,  of  Judah,  of  David,  Jesus  the  son  of  Joseph  ? 
Now  the  apostle  is  careful  to  remark,  Heb.  vii.  14,  that  of  the 
tribe  of  Judah,  Moses  spake  nothing  concerning  the  priesthood, 
and  consequently  no  man  of  that  tribe  could  be  a  priest  accord- 
ing to  the  order  of  Aaron.  See  Heb.  viii.  4.  But  the  Son  of 
Man — the  Heir,  the  Lord,  the  Pontiff  of  the  world — having 
become  incarnate  in  the  tribe  of  Judah,  in  fulfilment  of  God's 
30 


234  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

covenant  with  David,  see  notes  on  Matt.  ix.  4,  in  order  that 
he  might  have  somewhat  (viz.  the  body  of  flesh  which  he  took) 
to  offer,  Heb.  viii.  3 ;  x..  5,  fulfilled  his  own  proper  ofiice  of 
priest  according  to  the  order  of  his  higher  relations  as  Son  of 
Man;  that  is  to  say,  as  the  Christ,  the  covenanted  seed  of  Da- 
vid, he  exercised  a  priesthood  above  the  order  of  his  incarnate 
relations  to  the  race,  and  according  to  his  relations  to  the  world 
from  its  creation,  as  Son  of  Man.  It  was  this  which  consti- 
tuted him  a  priest  according  to  the  order  of  Melchizedec.  This 
could  not  be,  if  Melchizedec  had  been  any  other  than  the  Son 
of  Man.  For  if  Melchizedec  were  a  mortal  man,  then  he  could 
not  have  had  that  which  is  essential  to  his  own  order,  for  which 
our  Lord  was  denominated  a  priest  after  his  order;  but  if  an 
immortal  man,  then  he  could  be  no  other  than  the  Son  of  Man. 

(8.)  Again ;  if  the  priesthood  of  Melchizedec  be  perpetual, 
and  Melchizedec  himself  a  priest  (e^c  to  or/ji^exs^,  Heb.  vii.  3) 
for  ever,  then  our  Lord  as  Son  of  Man  was  Melchizedec  ;  other- 
wise it  would  follow  that  there  are  two  perpetual  priesthoods, 
or  a  succession  of  one  priest  to  another  in  that  priesthood,  or 
two  priests  at  the  same  time  in  the  same  office,  either  of  which 
is  impossible.  And  if  it  be  essential  to  the  order  of  Melchi- 
zedec that  the  priest  should  intercede  within  the  veil,  then  the 
Son  of  Man,  in  the  person  of  Jesus,  must  be  the  Melchizedec 
of  whom  Moses,  and  David,  and  Paul  wrote ;  or  there  would  be 
two  intercessors  within  the  veil,  which  is  contrary  to  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  for  none  but  Jesus  ever  did  or  ever  will  intercede  within 
the  veil.  It  may  be  added  that  the  similitude  between  the 
priesthood  of  Christ  and  that  of  Melchizedec,  pointed  out  by 
David  in  the  110th  Psalm,  has  respect  to  the  perpetuity  and 
eternity  of  the  latter.  Hence,  again,  we  infer  that  Melchizedec 
and  the  Son  of  Man  were  one  and  the  same  person,  only  under 
different  manifestations  and  dispensations. 

(4.)  If  we  may  translate  Heb.  vii.  1  [outo^  yap  b  MeX-^coedex) 
by  the  same  rule  the  translators  of  our  version  observed  in  ren- 
dering Heb.  viii.  10  {ore  abvq  q  dcadrjxrj)  "for  this  is  the  cove- 
nant," etc.,  we  get  a  direct  solution  of  the  p.postle's  meaning; 
for  the  verse  would  then  be  read  thus  :  "  For  this" — referring  to 
Jesus,  the  forerunner,  in  the  preceding  verse — "^'s  the  Melchi- 
zedec (king  of  righteousness,)  king  of  Salem  (king  of  peace,) 
priest  of  the  ISIost  High  God,  who  met  Abraham  returning  from 
the  slaughter  of  the  kings,  and  blessed  him."* 

*  These  kings,  as  all  the  kings  of  the  earth  ever  have  been,  were  subordi- 
nate to  the  Son  of  Man  as  the  rightful  Lord  and  King  of  the  whole  earth,  and 
they  were  in  rebellion  against  him.  The  appearance  of  Melchizedec,  therefore, 
to  meet  the  returning  victor,  and  what  he  said  to  him,  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a 
courtesy  of  friendly  congratulations,  such  as  one  earthly  king  might  show  or 


THE   SON    OF   MAN    THE   TRUE   MELCHIZEDEC.  235 

In  this  manner  Erasmus,  no  mean  authority,  interpreted  the 
verse.  "Nam  hie  erat  Melchizedec,  rex  Salem  Pontifex  Dei 
Altissimi,"  etc.  The  meaning  of  the  apostle  is,  that  Jesus, 
whom  he  urged  upon  them  to  acknowledge  and  receive  as  the 
promised  Messiah,  is  a  priest  superior  to  their  own  priests  of 
the  order  of  Aaron,  heing  a  priest  according  to  the  order  of 
Melchizedec,  because  as  the  Son  of  Man  he  is  the  Melchizedec 
who  met  Abraham,  and  blessed  him,  and  received  tithes  of 
him,  as  being  by  far  his  inferior.  See  notes  on  Matt.  xvii. 
22,  23.* 

The  clause  of  the  verse  (28th)  upon  which  these  observations 
are  founded,  may  then  be  paraphrased  thus:  "Even  as  the 
Son  of  Man,  the  true  Melchizedec,  came  forth  from  the  Father 
and  came  into  the  world  (John  xvi.  28)  and  took  unto  himself 
a  body  in  the  seed  of  Abraham  (Heb.  ii.  16,)  in  order  that  he 
might,  as  a  priest  of  his  own  order,  offer  it  up  on  the  cross  as  a 
sacrifice,  a  ransom  for  many." 

This  was  the  end  for  which  he  came ;  for  although  at  first 
he  came  to  the  nation  of  Israel  as  Messiah,  and  preached  the 
kingdom  to  them  that  they  might  receive  him  in  that  character 
as  their  king ;  yet  it  was  foreseen  that  the  nation  would  reject 
him,  as  they  virtually  did  when  they  rejected  John  the  Baptist, 
and  from  that  time  forth  he  ministered  to  those  who  would 
receive  him  as  the  Son  of  Man  and  Saviour,  and  at  the 
appointed  time  laid  down  his  life  a  ransom  for  many  of  that 
people  and  for  the  redemption  of  the  world,  which  was  by 
inheritance  his  own.f 

Matt.  xxi.  1 — 11.  The  triumphal  entry  of  our  Lord  into 
Jerusalem  was  a  remarkable  event.  Nothing  like  it  had 
occurred  before.  It  was  at  variance  with  his  previous  life,  see 
Matt.  xii.  19,  and  it  must  have  greatly  perplexed  the  priests 

send  to  another,  but  as  an  interference  of  a  superior  of  both  the  victor,  who 
acted  in  this  affair  as  his  minister,  and  the  vanquished;  having  the  right  to 
rule  over  and  command  or  dispose  of  both,  and  award  between  them  at  his 
pleasure. 

*  J.  H.  Kurtz,  in  his  treatise  on  the  Old  Covenant,  vol.  i.  p.  220 — 223,  §  55, 
published  in  Clark's  ForeAgn  Theological  Library,  vol.  xxi..  New  Series,  regards 
Melchizedec  as  the  highest  and  last  representative  of  the  Noachic  covenant, 
and  as  the  last  independent  representative  of  the  Shemitic  population,  which 
had  been  vanquished  by  the  Canaanites.  In  some  respects  this  author  thinks 
he  was  superior  to  Abraham,  but  in  other  respects  inferior.  The  discussion  is 
elaborate,  but  does  not  remove  the  difficulties  that  attend  every  hypothesis, 
which  assumes  an  earthly  although  unknown  genealogy  of  Melchizedec. 

f  In  Rev.  v.  10,  the  redeemed  are  represented  as  praising  the  Lamb  because 
he  had  made  them  kings  and  priests  unto  God ;  and  in  Rev.  xx.  G,  it  is  declared, 
that  those  who  have  part  in  the  ^rs^  resurrection  shall  be  priests  of  God  and 
of  Christ.  See  1  Pet.  ii.  5,  9.  Did  it  ever  occur  to  the  reader  to  inquire  of 
what  order  their  priesthood  will  be?  See  John  xvii.  22 ;  Philip,  iv.  21 ;  1  Joha 
ill.  2  ;  Heb.  ii.  11. 


236  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

and  Pharisees  who  had  ah'eady  resolved  to  put  him  to  death. 
John  XI.  58.  John  gives  us  precisely  the  date  of  it  in  reference 
to  the  approaching  passover.  By  comparing  John  xii.  1  and 
12,  it  appears  to  have  taken  place  on  the  fifth  day  before  that 
festival,  and  according  to  our  reckoning  on  Sunday,  the  Sunday 
following  being  the  day  of  his  resurrection.  The  interval  was 
thickly  crowded  with  the  most  wonderful  events  the  world  has 
ever  witnessed.  The  history  of  these  events,  and  the  public 
and  private  discourses  our  Lord  delivered  during  that  short 
space  of  time,  occupy  the  last  eight  chapters  of  this  Gospel. 
The  space  allotted  by  each  of  the  Evangelists*  to  the  closing 
week  of  our  Lord's  ministry,  compared  with  that  allotted  to 
the  preceding  part  of  it,  shows  not  only  the  transcendent 
importance  of  its  events,  but  the  deep  interest  which  they  felt 
in  them. 

But  there  is  another  view  in  which  we  should  consider  this 
occurrence.  In  the  preceding  notes  the  reader's  attention  has 
been  called  to  the  majesty  and  glory  of  our  Lord's  nature  as  a 
man,  his  wonderful  attributes  of  wisdom  and  power,  and  his 
dominion  over  all  physical  and  spiritual  natures.  That  such  a 
being  should  accept  a  triumph  whose  crowning  glory  was  the 
hosannas  of  children,  shows  his  great  condescension,  and 
justifies  the  conclusion  that  there  was  a  much  deeper  meaning 
in  the  transaction  than  those  who  witnessed  it  discerned. 
Matthew  alleges  expressly,  that  this  entry  of  our  Lord  into 
Jerusalem,  and  the  manner  of  it,  were  a  fulfilment  of  prophecy, 
Zech.  ix.  9,  and  so  does  John,  xii.  15.  It  was  a  sign  by  which 
Jerusalem  might  know  her  king ;  and  however  minute  or  trivial 
it  might  appear  to  the  careless  and  worldly  Jews,  it  must  be 
fulfilled.  John  xix.  28 ;  x.  35.  He  was  the  king — God's  king 
over  the  whole  earth — of  whom  it  had  been  declared.  Psalm 
ii.  6,  7:  "Yet  have  I  set  my  king  upon  my  holy  hill  of  Zion;" 
and  this  was  the  sign  by  which  his  approach  might  be  known  : 
"Behold  thy  king  cometh  unto  thee,  meek  and  sitting  upon  an 
ass,  the  foal  of  an  ass."  But  let  us  attend  to  the  circumstances 
of  the  narrative. 

Matt.  xxi.  1,  2.  "  And  when  they  drew  nigh  unto  Jerusalem, 
and  were  come  to  Bethphage  unto  the  Mount  of  Olives,  then 
sent  Jesus  two  of  his  disciples,  saying,  Go  into  the  village  over 
against  you." 

Our  Lord  had  advanced  from  Bethany,  which  was  fifteen 
furlongs,  or  nearly  two  miles  distant  from  Jerusalem,  to  Beth- 

*  The  last  six  chapters  of  Mark's  Gospel — from  the  28th  verse  of  the  nine- 
teenth chapter  of  Luke  to  the  end — from  the  12th  verse  of  the  twelfth  chapter 
of  John  to  the  23d  verse  of  the  twentieth  chapter. 


THE  POWER  OF  christ's  avill.  237 

phage,  a  village  supposed  to  have  been  somewhat,  though  not 
much,  nearer  the  city.  See  Luke  xix.  29.  There  he  stopped 
for  a  few  moments,  it  may  be  presumed,  to  make  the  necessary 
preparation  for  his  entry  in  the  manner  predicted  by  the 
prophet.  He  was  surrounded  by  a  vast  multitude.  Matt. 
xxi.  8,  greater,  perhaps,  than  ever  before,  who  were  going  up 
to  the  approaching  festival.  From  Bethphage  he  sent  two  of 
his  disciples  to  a  village  not  named  by  either  Evangelist,  but 
quite  near,  and,  perhaps,  in  sight,  giving  them  a  direction  Avhich 
evinced  both  his  knowledge  and  his  power. 

Matt.  xxi.  2.  "And  straightw^ay  {eddeco^  readily,  without 
seeking)  ye  shall  find  an  ass  tied,  and  a  colt  with  her," 
"whereon  never  man  sat."  Mark  xi.*2,  Luke  xix.  30. 

This  direction  may  remind  the  reader  of  that  he  gave  to 
Peter  respecting  the  tribute  money.  Matt.  xvii.  27,  and  of 
another  he  soon  afterwards  gave  to  the  two  disciples  he  sent  to 
prepare  the  passover.  Mark  xiv.  12 — 16;  Luke  xxii.  8 — 10. 
Nor  can  we  regard  the  words  "whereon  never  man  sat,"  as 
unimportant.  They  are  the  words  of  the  Saviour,  and  two  of 
the  Evangelists  carefully  note  them.  Their  design,  perhaps, 
was  to  show  the  submissiveness  of  the  untrained  animal  to  the 
Saviour's  will,  and,  in  this  view,  it  may  be  classed  with  the 
miracle  wrought  for  the  payment  of  the  tribute  money,  Matt, 
xvii.  27,  and  thus  be  intended  as  a  further  exemplification  of 
the  dominion  ascribed  to  him  in  the  eighth  Psalm. 

Matt.  xxi.  8.  "And  if  any  one  say  aught  to  you,  ye  shall 
say,  The  Lord  hath  need  of  them,  and  straightway  he  will  send 
them." 

What  the  Saviour  anticipated,  we  learn  from  Mark  xi.  5,  and 
Luke  xix.  33,  occurred.  The  owners,  Luke  xix.  33,  observing 
the  unceremonious  manner  in  which  their  property  was  about 
to  be  taken,  interposed:  "Why  loose  ye  the  colt?"  The 
motive  for  this  question  is  not  explained.  Whether  they  appre- 
hended trouble  or  danger  from  untying  the  colt,  or  merely 
regarded  the  act  as  an  improper  interference  with  their  rights, 
we  can  only  conjecture.  Bengel  supposes  that  the  owners  were 
devoted  friends  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  But  of  this  there  is  no 
evidence.  We  suppose  that  they  would  as  readily  have  con- 
sented if  they  had  been  strangers,  or  even  enemies  to  him.  It 
seems  much  more  probable  that  the  recording  of  this  circum- 
stance was  designed  to  show  the  power  of  the  Saviour's  will ; 
and  thus  considered,  it  may  remind  the  reader  again  of  Mark 
xiv.  14,  15;  and  Luke  xxii.  8 — 10.  Besides,  the  title  which 
he  assumed,  and  bade  his  messengers  declare — the  lord — 
"liiKn  seems  to  have  respect  to  his  universal  headship  over  the 


238  NOTES   ON    SCRIPTURE. 

earth,  as  Son  of  Man,  rather  than  to  the  special  relation  he 
bore  to  his  disciples  and  familiar  friends.  See  John  xiii.  18. 
We  may  add,  that  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy  finds  neither 
impediments  in  the  opposition  of  enemies,  nor  assistance  from 
the  favour  of  friends.  If  we  may  adopt  this  view  as  the  true 
one,  Ave  have  in  this  chapter  three  notable  examples  of  the 
power  of  the  Saviour's  will,  see  verses  2,  3,  19,  as  well  as  a 
direct  reference,  verse  16,  to  the  eighth  Psalm,  in  which  his 
dominion,  also  as  Son  of  Man,  over  created  natures,  is 
described.     See  notes  on  Matt.  viii.  28 — 32, 

But  we  must  not  leave  this  passage  without  noticing  the 
majesty  of  the  expression,  "The  Lord  hath  need  of  them." 
As  if  he  had  said:  The*Son  of  Man — the  Lord  of  the  world, 
requires  their  services,  not  for  his  own  ease  or  convenience,  for 
we  do  not  read  that  he  rode  at  any  other  time  during  his  public 
ministry,  but  for  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy,  as  we  are  informed 
in  the  next  verses. 

Matt.  xxi.  4,  5.  "  All  this  was  done,  that  it  might  be  ful- 
filled which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet,  [Zech.  ix.  9]  saying. 
Tell  ye  the  daughter  of  Zion,  [Jerusalem]  Behold  thy  king 
cometh  unto  thee,  meek  and  sitting  upon  an  ass,  and  [rather 
say  eveii]  the  foal  of  an  ass,"  [used  to  a  yoke]  or,  as  John 
quotes,  "Fear  not,  daughter  of  Zion,  behold,  thy  king  cometh, 
sitting  on  an  ass's  colt."* 

Neither  Mark  nor  Luke  quotes  this  or  any  other  prophecy 
as  having  been  fulfilled  on  this  occasion;  and  John  omits  the 

*  This  verse  differs  in  some  respects  from  the  corresponding  verses  of  the 
other  Evangelists.  Some  critics  regard  the  words  (im  ovov  ica/  ttcdkcv)  "  upon 
an  ass  and  a  colt,"  as  an  example  of  hendiadys,  and  consequently  suppose  that 
only  the  colt  was  brought  by  the  disciples,  according  to  the  representation 
of  the  other  Evangelists.  They  rectify  the  other  variations  according  to  this 
idea.  Thus  in  verse  7,  for  i^ava  xvTm  they  read  iTrayw  Mrm  or  i7ruva>  ho;  i^ 
ctuTctv.  See  Dr.  Owen  Boivycr's  Crit.  Conj.  This  explanation  does  not  fully 
meet  the  difficulty.  It  is  plain  from  Matthew,  that  two  animals,  the  ass  and 
her  colt,  were  brought  by  the  disciples,  and  it  is  plain  from  the  other  Evange- 
lists, that  the  Lord  entered  the  city  riding  on  the  colt.  Bengel  says,  "our 
Lord  rode  on  the  foal,  but  employed  also  the  mother  as  a  companion  to  the  foal," 
but  why,  he  does  not  explain.  We  suggest  that  it  was  for  the  more  punctual 
fulfilment  of   the  prophecy.      The  word  tri^tlS  (athnoth)  is  rendered  in  the 

LXX.  by  the  word  C-ro^uym,  which  word  Matthew  adopts.  It  signifies  a 
draught  animal,  a  beast  of  burden.  Accordingly,  it  is  rendered  in  the  Geneva, 
Cranmer's,  AVicklifiFe's,  and  the  Bishops'  translations  of  the  Bible,  the  foal  of 
an  ass  used  to  the  yoke.  Assuming  the  sense  of  the  Septuagint,  as  conveying 
the  proper  meaning  of  the  prophet,  the  Evangelist  Matthew  differs  from  the 
others,  chiefly  in  being  more  particular ;.  for  the  purpose,  it  may  be  presumed, 
of  showing  hoW  minutely  our  Lord's  conduct,  on  this  occasion,  corresponded 
with  the  words  of  the  prophecy.  He  took  care  that  nothing  should  be  want- 
ing to  the  sign  or  proof  which  he  was  now  about  to  exhibit  to  the  nation, 
that  he  was  the  king  in  whom  the  prophet  bade  them  to  rejoice  greatly. 
Zech.  ix.  9. 


Christ's  entry  into  Jerusalem.  239 

circumstance  of  the  Saviour  sending  two  disciples  to  tlic  village, 
and  the  directions  he  gave  them.  He  says,  however,  that  none 
of  them  understood  at  that  time  the  meaning  of  the  transaction ; 
but  after  "Jesus  was  glorified,  then  remembered  they  that  these 
things  were  written  of  him,  and  that  they  had  done  these  things 
unto  him."  Yet  the  prophecy  is  unambiguous,  and  by  thus 
fulfilling  it  the  Lord  virtually  assumed  the  character  of  Zion's 
King.  It  was  an  overt  act  or  claim  of  sovereignty  much  more 
significant  than  any  which  the  chief  priests  alleged  against  him 
before  Pilate.  Luke  xxiii.  2.  It  was  an  answer  also  to  the 
demand  of  his  authority  which  the  priests  and  elders  made  on 
the  day  following  in  the  temple,  verse  23,  which  they  might 
have  perceived,  had  they  remembered  the  prophecy  and  under- 
stood it. 

Matt.  xxi.  8.  "And  a  very  great  multitude  spread  their 
garments  in  the  way,  and  others  cut  down  branches  from  the 
trees  and  strewed  them  in  the  way." 

It  appears  by  John  xii.  12,  13,  that  the  multitudes  which 
attended  him  on  this  occasion,  in  part  at  least,  came  out  from 
Jerusalem  to  meet  him,  for  the  news  of  his  coming  had  reached 
the  city.  These  joined  the  multitudes  which  had  followed  from 
Jericho.  Matt.  xx.  31.  It  was  a  vast  concourse,  which  agi- 
tated [kaecad-f],  verse  10)  and  aroused  the  whole  city.  The 
universal  inquiry  was.  Who  is  this? 

The  spreading  of  their  garments  and  the  strewing  of  branches 
in  the  way,  were  tokens  of  submission  to  him,  as  their  lawful 
King.  2  Kings  ix.  13.  It  was  done  {xar  ocxouo/jiiau)  as  a  part 
of  the  customary  ceremonial  of  a  new  accession  to  the  throne. 

Matt.  xxi.  9.  f'And  the  multitudes  that  went  before  and 
that  followed,  cried,  saying,  Hosanna  to  the  Son  of  David; 
Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord:  Hosanna 
in  the  highest." 

By  this  acclamation  they  indicated  that  a  king  of  David's 
race  had  commenced  his  reign;  an  event  which  was  looked  for 
by  all,  and  was  most  grateful  to  their  desires.  The  word 
hosanna  was  an  invocation  of  his  royal  aid  and  clemency, 
2  Sam.  xiv.  4;  I'coaou,  6  ^aadeoc;,  awaop,  LXX;  Serva  me,  Ilex, 
Vulg. ;  nrr'in,  Heb. ;  see  also  Ps.  cxviii.  25,  from  which  this 
acclamation  appears  to  have  been  adopted,  as  if  they  had  said: 
"Hosanna  to  thee,  0  Son  of  David;  Hosanna  to  Him  who  is 
in  the  highest  heavens,  (I^aavi^a,  oo^a  no  iu  uipcazoic:  6£(o.") 

We  learn  from  Luke  xix.  37,  that  the  acclamation  com- 
menced at  the  descent  of  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and  from 
Matthew  xxi.  15,  that  it  was  continued  until  after  he  had 
entered  the  temple.  The  Pharisees,  who  were  displeased,  Luke 
xix.  39,  regarded  this  demonstration  of  the  popular  favour  as  a 


240  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

sure  indication  of  his  success,  John  xii.  19;  from  which  we 
may  infer  the  impressiveness  of  the  scene.  Matt.  xxi.  10.  Bat 
to  us  it  suggests  other  reflections. 

The  time  had  now  come  when  our  Lord,  in  fulfihnent  of  the 
prophecy,  must  enter  his  own  city  as  her  king.  Matt.  v.  35; 
Ps.  xlviii.  2 ;  Ixxxvii.  3.  His  entrance,  and  the  manner  of  it, 
was  his  own  voluntary  act;  and  to  give  it  the  force  of  a  true 
sign  and  proof  of  his  character,  it  must  be  attended  with  cir- 
cumstances which  demonstrated  the  presence  of  Divine  power, 
and  with  tokens  which  no  deceiver  could  fabricate.  Some  of 
these  have  already  been  alluded  to.  See  notes  on  verse  3.  The 
same  power  which  he  exerted  over  the  untrained  animal,  and 
over  the  will  of  its  owners,  he  exerted  over  the  minds  of  the 
multitude.  Their  hosannas,  though  voluntary,  could  not  have 
been  withheld,  or  had  that  been  possible,  even  inanimate  nature 
would  have  been  subservient  to  his  will.  Luke  xix.  40.*  The 
whole  transaction,  not  excepting  its  minutest  circumstances, 
was  arranged  and  carried  on  by  the  power  of  his  will;  as  the 
homage  due  to  the  royal  office  he  had  temporarily  assumed,  in 
order  to  fulfil  the  Scriptures.  Had  their  hosannas  been  uni- 
versal and  sincere,  the  overflowings  of  holy  hearts,  he  would  at 
that  time  have  established  his  kingdom  over  them.  Luke  xix. 
41 — 44;  Matt,  xxiii.  37.  But  they  were  not  such;  rather 
were  they  the  homage  of  depraved  natures — a  homage,  never- 
theless, which  must  needs  be  rendered,  that  the  prediction  of 
the  prophet  might  be  fulfilled,  verse  4. 

To  this  occasion,  and  the  events  which  soon  followed,  the 
second  Psalm  undoubtedly  refers.  Acts  iv.  24 — 28;  xiii.  33. 
The  6th  verse  refers  especially  to  this  occasion,  yet  only  pro- 
visionally or  conditionally:  "Yet  have  I  set  my  king  upon  my 
holy  hill  of  Zion,"  [or  more  literally,  "And  I  have  anointed 
my  King  over  Zion,  the  mountain  of  my  holiness."] 

Jesus,  the  Son  of  Man,  Jehovah's  King  over  the  whole  earth, 
was  advancing  to  Mount  Zion  to  take  possession  of  the  throne 
of  David,  and  to  confirm,  at  that  time,  the  promises  unto  the 
fathers,  Rom.  xv.  8,  if  their  children  would  receive  him  with  a 
loving  and  obedient  spirit. 

Luke  xix.  41 — 44.  "And  when  he  was  come  near,  he  looked' 
on  the  city  and  wept  over  it." 

The  word  [ixXaooe)  translated  wept,  implies,  says  Dr.  Robin- 
son, "not  only  the  shedding  of  tears,  but  every  external  expres- 
sion of  grief."  It  is  a  more  intensive  word  than  {idaxpuas)  that 
translated  tvept,  in  John  xi.  35.     The  passage  proves,  that  as 

*  Luke's  word  >itx,f*^ovTcu  is  very  expressive.  It  is  the  only  example  of  the 
paulo-post-future  teuse  iu  the  New  Testameut. 


Christ's  lamentation  over  Jerusalem.  241 

a  man,  our  Lord  felt  more  deeply  for  the  doomed  city  and  its 
inhabitants  than  any  other  man  could  feel ;  for  no  other  man 
could  have  so  vivid  an  apprehension  of  the  awful  judgments 
which  their  foreseen  and  guilty  rejection  of  him  would  bring 
upon  them.  See  Luke  xxiii.  27 — 31,  and  notes  on  those  verses. 
But  notice  also  the  contrasts :  He  was  entering  the  city  with 
triumphal  displays,  amidst  the  shoutings  and  rejoicings  of 
myriads,  in  the  manner  foretold  by  the  prophet,  yet  lamenting 
aloud — a  circumstance  not  plainly  expressed  by  the  prophet, 
yet  implied  perhaps  in  the  word  "'iS',  ani.  See  Deut.  xvi.  3; 
Prov.  xxxi.  5;  Gen.  xvi.  11;  xli.  52,  which  the  LXX.  in  this 
place  render  npaiJQ — a  rendering  which  the  Evangelist  adopts. 
We  do  not  suppose  the  word  necessarily  implies  the  shedding  of 
tears,  because  the  Evangelist  adds,  by  way  of  explanation: 

Luke  xix.  42.  "Saying,  If  thou  hadst  known,  even  thou, 
at  least  in  this  thy  day,  the  things  which  belong  to  thy  peace  ! 
But  now  they  are  hidden  from  thine  eyes." 

This  verse  may  be  rendered :  "  Oh  !  that  thou  hadst  known, 
even  thou  also" — alluding,  perhaps,  to  his  disciples,  who  ac- 
knowledged him  wnth  hearty  good  will — "the  things  that  make 
for  thy  peace,  in  this  thy  day!" — meaning,  perhaps,  that  very 
day  of  his  entry  into  Jerusalem,  as  her  rightful  King,  which  was 
a  day  altogether  extraordinary.  Ps.  cxviii.  24.  But  noAv  they 
are  hidden  from  thine  eyes."     See  BengeVs  Gnomon. 

By  the  rejection  of  John  the  Baptist,  the  nation  virtually 
rejected  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  the  kingdom  he  offered  them.  See 
notes  on  Matt.  xiv.  10.  By  the  just  judgment  of  God,  there- 
fore, the  condition  of  the  nation,  as  such,  was  changed.  Judi- 
cial blindness  had  come  over  the  people  nationally.  The  min- 
istry of  the  Lord,  as  has  been  remarked,  had  also  been  from 
that  time  changed,  and  his  labours  directed  to  other  ends,  viz. 
to  the  saving  of  those  who  would  receive  him  with  the  obedience 
of  faith.  John  i.  11,  12.  Yet  no  one  who  considers  this  verse 
with  intelligence  and  candour,  can  doubt  the  willingness  (rather 
say  the  earnest  desire)  of  the  Lord  Jesus  to  save  the  whole 
nation,  and  to  establish  his  kingdom  in  outward  glory  over  it, 
even  at  that  time.  That  he  did  not  do  so,  was  owing  wholly  to 
their  voluntary  rejection  of  him  as  their  King.  Matt.  xxi.  42; 
Ps.  cxviii.  22.  Had  the  nation  received  him,  there  would  have 
been  no  occasion  for  a  dispensation  like  the  present,  the  object 
of  which  is  to  gather  another-  elect  people  to  take  the  place  of 
Israel,  according  to  the  flesh.  Matt.  xxi.  42.  Yet,  had  Israel 
nationally  received  him,  a  new  dispensation,  or  order  of  things, 
would,  no  doubt,  have  been  established,  in  the  blessings  of  which 
all  the  nations  of  the  earth  would  have  shared.  But  by  what 
means,  or  in  what  manner,  the  Divine  wisdom  would  have  intro- 
31 


242  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

duced  it,  "we  presume  not  to  speculate  or  inquire.  The  Scrip- 
tures are  silent  upon  the  question,  as  they  have  been  given  to 
us,  according  to  the  foreknown  issues  of  the  Levitical  economy. 
Acts.  XV.  13 — 18.  Yet  we  have  no  reason  to  believe,  that  the 
recovery  of  the  world  from  the  fall,  and  the  removal  of  the 
curse,  could  have  been  wrought  by  any  other  means  than  the 
death  of  the  Son  of  Man,  its  King  and  Lord.  But  who  would 
have  put  him  to  death,  if  his  people  had  received  him?  In  the 
providence  of  God,  the  chosen  people  had  become  subject  to 
Gentile  power;  and  Ps.  ii.  1,  2;  Acts  iv.  25 — 27,  may  cast 
some  light  upon  this  subject.  Still  the  question  is  speculative, 
and  ought  not  to  be  pressed.  Of  one  thing,  however,  we  are 
sure,  that  the  Divine  power  and  wisdom  can  never  want  expe- 
dients to  accomplish  all  the  Divine  purposes,  under  all  sup- 
posable  or  possible  contingencies  and  emergencies. 

We  are  justified,  therefore,  in  considering  the  scheme  of  the 
Divine  procedure  towards  Israel,  the  elect  nation,  and  the  world 
at  large,  as  framed  with  a  double  aspect;  that  is,  as  having 
respect  to  what  God  would  do,  whether  Israel  would  keep  or 
break  the  terms  of  the  covenant.  If  Israel  would  obey  and 
keep  the  covenant,  then  they  should  be  a  peculiar  people,  a 
kingdom  of  priests.  This  is  expressly  declared,  Exod.  xix.  5,  6. 
They  should  be  exalted  to  thrones  of  celestial  glory,  and  be 
for  ever  with  the  Lord,  and  not  only  behold  the  glory  of  their 
King,  but  be  sharers  in  it  and  his  throne.  The  nations  of  the 
earth,  from  that  time  forth,  would  have  been  subject  to  their 
rule.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  they  should  disobey  and  break 
the  covenant,  as  it  was  foreseen  they  would,  then  the  promised 
kingdom  should  be  taken  from  them,  and  given  to  another 
people,  to  be  chosen  of  God,  and  called  and  collected  in  such 
manner  and  at  such  times  as  he  should  see  fit.  Matt.  xxi.  43; 
xxii.  8,  9,  11 — 13;  Luke  xiv.  24;  1  Pet.  ii.  9;  and  see  notes 
on  Matt.  xvii.  22,  28. 

Luke  xix.  48,  44.  "For  the  days  will  come  upon  thee,  that 
thine  enemies  shall  cast  a  trench  about  thee,  and  compass  thee 
round,  and  keep  thee  in  on  every  side,  and  shall  lay  thee  even 
with  the  ground,  and  thy  children  within  thee,  and  they  shall 
not  leave  in  thee  one  stone  upon  another,  because  thou  knewest 
not  the  time  of  thy  visitation." 

This  prophecy  was  pronounced  as  the  Lord  Jesus  was  about 
to  enter  the  city  as  its  King.  It  was  repeated  more  in  detail 
to  four  of  the  disciples  upon  the  inount,  from  which  he  was  then 
descending,  two  days  afterwards,  Luke  xxi. ;  Matt.  xxiv. ; 
Mark  xiii. ;  and  the  same  calamities  he  alluded  to  again,  when 
bearing  his  cross  to  Calvary.  Luke  xxiii.  29.  The  true  cause 
of  them  is  assigned  in  the  last  clause  of  these  verses.     The 


EXPULSION  OF  THE  MONEY-CHANGERS.        243 

nation  "knew  not  the  time  of  its  visitation,"  words  which 
correspond  to  the  42d  verse.  The  time  had  come  when  the 
peace  of  the  nation  must  be  established  under  his  rule,  or  the 
nation  itself  must  be  given  over  to  the  power  of  its  enemies. 
He  would  have  gathered  and  protected  them  with  the  most 
affectionate  care,  Matt,  xxiii.  37  ;  Ps.  Ixxxi.  13 — 16,  but  they 
would  not  be  gathered.  The  fault  was  theirs.  The  Saviour 
had  exhibited  to  them  all  the  appointed  proofs  of  his  Messiah- 
ship.  The  manner  of  his  entry  into  the  city  at  that  time  was 
a  prophetical  sign  of  his  royal  character,  and  claim  to  their 
allegiance.  Had  it  been  possible  for  them  to  receive  him  with 
the  obedience  of  faith,  and  had  they  done  so,  "he  would  have 
soon  subdued  their  enemies,  and  turned  his  hand  against  their 
adversaries.  The  haters  of  the  Lord  should  have  submitted 
themselves  to  him,  but  their  time  should  have  endured  for 
ever."    Ps.  Ixxxi.  14,  15. 

Matt.  xxi.  10,  11.  "And  when  he  was  come  into  Jerusalem 
all  the  city  [the  whole  city]  was  moved  [agitated,  put  in  com- 
motion,] saying,  Who  is  this?  And  the  multitude  said,  This  is 
Jesus,  the  prophet  of  Nazareth  of  Galilee." 

Matthew  alone  notices  the  irapressiveness  of  the  popular 
demonstration  and  display  upon  the  masses  of  the  city,  thronged 
as  it  was  at  that  time.  Probably  this  minuteness  was  suggested 
by  the  fact  that  it  was  the  fulfilment  of  the  important  prophecy 
he  had  quoted.  Never  before  had  our  Lord  entered  the  city 
in  that  manner,  and  never  did  he  so  enter  it  again.  Yet  it  is 
noticeable,  that  the  multitudes  who  thus  honoured  him,  ascribed 
to  him  no  higher  character  than  that  of  a  prophet  from  a 
despised  city.  Unwittingly,  therefore,  they  fulfilled  the  pro- 
phecy, John  xii.  16,  not  even  understanding  the  hosannas 
they  offered  to  him  as  the  Son  of  David;  thus  ignorantly 
acknowledging  him  as  their  King,  whom  their  rulers,  five  days 
afterwards,  ignorantly  but  wickedly  rejected  and  slew.  Acts 
ii.  23;  iii.  17. 

Matt.  xxi.  12,  13.  "And  Jesus  went  into  the  temple  of  God 
and  cast  out  all  them  that  sold  and  bought  in  the  temple,  and 
overthrew  the  tables  of  the  money-changers,  and  the  seats  of 
them  that  sold  doves ;  and  he  said  to  them.  It  is  written,  My 
house  shall  be  called  the  house  of  prayer,  but  ye  have  made  it 
a  den  of  thieves." 

Some  harmonists  refer  this  transaction  to  the  next  day, 
(Monday,  according  to  our  reckoning,)  in  order  to  reconcile 
Matthew  with  Mark.  Others  suppose,  that  it  was  repeated  on 
the  next  day,  as  Mark  relates,  with  this  additional  restraint, 
that  he  would  not  suffer  any  one  to  carry  a  vessel  through  the 
temple.  Mark  xi.  16.     According  to  this  hypothesis,  the  Lord 


244  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

drove  out  of  the  temple  the  money-changers  thrice,  viz.  once 
before  he  entered  upon  his  public  ministry,  while  John  was 
still  baptizing,  John  ii.  13 — 17,  and  twice  just  before  the  close 
of  it. 

Without  entering  into  a  formal  discussion  of  the  question, 
the  Avriter  adopts  this  view  of  the  matter,  as  it  appears  to  be 
both  reasonable  and  natural.  Another  question  has  been  made, 
whether  the  action  was  miraculous  or  simply  natural.  Upon 
this,  we  remark,  that  the  transaction  was  in  harmony  with  the 
other  acts  of  our  Lord  on  that  occasion.  He  had,  in  the  ful- 
filment of  prophecy,  Zech.  ix.  9,  temporarily  assumed  his 
character  of  King  of  Zion.  Entering  the  city  as  her  King,  in 
the  manner  foretold,  he  proceeded  to  the  temple  and  entered  it 
also  in  that  character.  This  is  evident  from  the  hosannas 
which  he  there  received  in  despite  of  the  remonstrances  of  the 
priests  and  scribes,  verse  15.  All  felt  his  presence  and  the 
mysterious  power  of  his  will.  His  works  in  the  temple  on  that 
occasion,  were  {Qa\jp.dai(i)  wonderful — wonderful,  as  we  suppose, 
in  comparison  with  any  he  had  exhibited  on  other  occasions, 
verse  15.  For  a  little  space,  he  acted  as  King,  though  {jtpaxxi) 
meekly  or  mildly,  in  comparison  with  the  powers  he  will  exert 
when  he  shall  sit  on  the  throne  of  his  glory.  Matt.  xxv.  31,  82. 
It  was  in  keeping  with  the  occasion,  and  indeed  it  was  required 
by  the  prophecy  he  was  fulfilling,  that  he  should  do  so.  This 
view  is  confirmed  by  the  next  verse. 

Matt.  xxi.  13.  "And  he  said  to  them.  It  is  written,  My 
house  shall  be  called  the  house  of  prayer,  but  ye  have  made  it 
a  den  of  thieves."     Mark  xi.  17;  Luke  xix.  46. 

He  claims  the  temple  as  his  own — his  house:  his,  by  Divine 
right,  as  King  of  Zion.  See  Matt.  xii.  6.  In  that  character 
and  by  that  right,  he  expelled,  not  by  a  scourge  of  cords,  John 
ii.  15,  but  by  force  of  his  will,  those  who  polluted  it.  These 
words  must  have  been  understood  by  those  who  heard  them  as 
an  assumption  of  personal  authority  over  the  temple,  and  of 
the  right  to  overrule  the  authority  of  the  priests.  Therefore 
it  was,  that  on  the  next  day  the  priests  and  the  elders  made  a 
formal  demand  of  his  authority,  and  whence  he  derived  it, 
verse  23,  seeing  the  guardianship  and  the  use  of  the  temple 
was  by  the  law  and  the  constitution  of  their  commonwealth 
especially  committed  to  them.  It  is  natural  to  suppose  that 
this  demand  was  made  officially,  and  after  a  fonual  consulta- 
tion; which  the  exciting  events -of  the  preceding  day  did  not 
allow  them  to  hold.  The  reader  will  observe  also,  that  their 
demand  did  not  turn  upon  his  miracles  of  healing,  verse  14,  or 
upon  his  teaching,  see  Matt.  xxii.  16,  for  these  they  did  not 


THE  HOMAGE  OF  THE  CHILDREN.  245 

regard  as  an  invasion  of  their  authority,  but  upon   his  other 
acts  on  that  occasion. 

Matt.  xxr.  15,  1(3.  "And  when  the  chief  priests  and  the 
scribes  saw  the  wonderful  things  [daoiJ.aaca,  the  wonders]  he 
did,  and  the  chikh-en  crying  in  the  temple,  and  saying,  Hosauna 
to  the  Son  of  David,  they  were  sore  displeased  [indignant,] 
and  said  to  him,  Hearest  thou  what  these  say?" 

This  question  of  the  priests  and  scribes  shows  the  chief  cause 
of  their  indignation.  They  understood  the  import  of  the  accla- 
mation, see  notes  on  verse  9,  and  regarded  his  acquiescence,  as 
an  assumption  of  the  character  the  children  ascribed  to  him. 
They  were  justified  in  doing  so,  by  the  acts  of  authority  he  had 
previously  performed.  We  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the 
healing  of  the  lame  and  the  blind  especially  moved  them,  as  the 
day  was  not  the  Sabbath.  Luke  xiii.  14. 

Matt.  xxi.  16.  "And  Jesus  said  to  them.  Yea,"  [[  hear 
them;  and]  "have  ye  never  read.  Out  of  the  mouth  of  babes 
and  sucklings,  thou  hast  perfected  praise?" 

By  this  quotation,  Ps.  viii.  2,  our  Lord  tacitly  alludes  to  his 
own  majesty  as  Son  of  Man:  for  the  words  of  David  were 
addressed  to  himself  as  Jehovah  Lord.  "  0  Jehovah,  our 
(Aden)  Lord,  out  of  [or  from]  the  mouth  of  babes  thou  hast 
perfected  praise."  Well,  therefore,  might  he  approve  and. 
appropriate  to  himself  as  Son  of  David  the  hosannas  so  offensive 
to  the  priests  and  Scribes ;  for  to  him  alone  were  they  due. 
See  notes  on  Matt.  ix.  4.  It  is  plain,  however,  that  the  Jews 
had  no  conception  of  the  mysterious  union  of  the  Divine  and 
human  natures  in  the  person  of  Messiah,  or  the  Son  of  Man  in 
the  Son  of  David ;  for  on  the  same  day,  and  perhaps  in  the 
temple  on  the  same  occasion,  his  discourse  concerning  himself 
as  the  Son  of  Man,  John  xii.  23 — 34,  prompted  the  people  to 
inquire,  "Who  is  this  Son  of  Man?"  verse  34.  "The  Christ," 
said  they,  "abideth  for  ever."  This  we  have  heard  out  of  the 
law:  but  thou  sayest,  "The  Son  of  Man  must  be  lifted  up." 
The  seemingly  opposite  destinies  of  these  two  persons,  as 
declared  by  the  law  and  by  himself,  proved  to  the  apprehen- 
sion of  the  people  that  they  could  not  be  the  same  person. 
This  inquiry  of  the  people  was  not  made  in  a  sceptical  spirit, 
for  they  regarded  him  as  a  prophet,  and  were  very  attentive  to 
hear  him.  Luke  xix.  48;  Mark  xi.  18;  Matt.  xxi.  46.  That 
the  Son  of  Man  was  not  an  ordinary  man  was  apparent  from 
the  whole  tenor  of  our  Lord's  discourse ;  especially  from  John 
xii.  23,  the  glory  claimed  for  him,  attested  as  the  claim  was, 
by  a  miraculous  voice,  verses  28,  29.  This  they  must  have 
understood:  but  who  could  he  be?  They  had  not  heard  of 
him  as  they  had  of  the  Christ,  out  of  the  law.     It  is  significant 


246  NOTES   ON    SCRIPTURE. 

that  our  Lord  did  not  answer  the  inquiry.  It  proves  that 
there  was  a  mystery  in  the  matter,  which  it  did  not  belong  to 
his  mission  to  explain.     Comp.  verses  34  and  35  of  John  xii. 

The  view  the  writer  takes  of  the  question  will  be  apparent  to 
those  who  have  considered  the  preceding  notes.  As  the  Adon 
or  Lord  of  the  world,  he  became  incarnate  in  the  line  of  David. 
It  was  this  purpose  which  excited  the  amazement  of  David. 
See  notes  on  Matt.  ix.  4 ;  Matt.  xvi.  13,  14,  16.  As  the  seed 
of  David,  he  was  also  King  of  Zion.  On  the  ground  of  this 
distinction,  we  account  for  the  discriminative  words  of  Ps.  ii.  6 : 
"Yet  have  I  set  my  King,"  that  is,  my  King  of  the  whole 
earth,  "upon  Zion,  the  mountain  of  my  holiness."  He  had 
now  come  in  fulfilment  of  prophecy,  Zech.  ix.  9,  meekly,  yet 
authoritatively,  to  take  possession  of  his  kingdom  and  of  his 
temple  for  a  brief  space,  and  then  voluntarily  to  offer  up  his 
body  as  a  ransom  for  the  world,  of  which,  as  the  Son  of  Man, 
he  was  the  Lord.  Considering  his  foreseen  rejection  as  Mes- 
siah, this  was  the  great  end  of  his  incarnation  and  mission; 
and  that  was  the  mystery  which  the  question  of  the  people 
touched  upon.  Our  Lord's  answer  was  in  effect:  "Use  well 
the  light  you  have,  while  you  have  it,  without  inquiring  into 
matters  which  do  not  especially  concern  you  at  this  time." 
John  xii.  35,  36. 

Matt.  xxi.  17.  "And  he  left  them,  and  went  out  of  the 
city  into  [to]  Bethany,  and  lodged  there." 

According  to  the  harmonists,  our  Lord's  triumphal  entry 
into  Jerusalem,  and  the  transactions  in  the  temple  which  we 
have  considered,  occurred  on  Sunday,  or  five  days  before  the 
passover.  It  does  not  appear  that  he  lodged  in  the  city  any 
night  afterwards.  He  went  either  to  Bethany,  Mark  xi.  12,  or 
to  the  Mount  of  Olives,  Luke  xxi.  37,  38 ;  Matt.  xxvi.  30 ; 
Mark  xiv.  26 ;  Luke  xxii.  39,  or  to  the  garden  of  Gethsemane, 
Matt.  xxvi.  36,  or  to  some  other  place  out  of  the  city,  Mark 
xi.  19.  Are  we  to  regard  this  conduct  as  a  precaution,  designed 
to  guard  by  natural  means  against  his  apprehension  before  the 
appointed  time,  see  John  x.  39,  and  notes  on  Matt.  ii.  12,  13, 
or  a  part  of  the  arrangement  by  Avhich  the  punctual  fulfilment 
of  the  prophecies  was  to  be  accomplished,  see  John  xviii.  2; 
Acts  i.  16,  or  both?  However  we  may  resolve  these  questions, 
it  is  evident,  the  rulers  thought  it  a  matter  of  much  difficulty  to 
apprehend  him,  requiring  even  subtilty  on  their  part,  Matt, 
xxvi.  4;  Mark  xiv.  1;  John  xi.  57,  and  so  did  Judas.  Luke 
xxii.  6;  Matt.  xxvi.  15.  Hence  they  eagerly  embraced  the 
offer  of  the  traitor.  Luke  xxii.  5.  It  is  probable,  too,  they 
thought  night  the  only  time  when  the  apprehension  of  him 
could  be  made  without  danger  of  a  rescue  by  the  people.     See 


THE   WITHERING   OF   THE   FIG-TREE.  247 

Matt,  xxi  46 ;  Luke  xix.  48.  But  they  kneAv  neither  the  mys- 
tery of  Providence,  nor  the  mystery  of  his  person.  No  hand 
could  apprehend  him  before  the  appointed  hour  had  come. 
John  vii.  30  ;  viii.  20 ;  xiii.  1 ;  Luke  xxii.  5.3.  Then  he  volun- 
tarily surrendered  himself.  John  xviii.  4 — 8.  The  manner  of 
his  apprehension,  therefore,  was  an  unnecessary  indignity,  and 
so  the  Saviour  himself  spoke  of  it,  as  the  Evangelists  are  care- 
ful to  notice.  Matt.  xxvi.  55 ;  Mark  xiv.  49 ;  Luke  xxii.  53. 
It  is  sufficient  to  add,  that  our  Lord's  daily  departure  at 
evening  from  the  city,  gave  occasion  to  the  priests  and  rulers 
to  display  their  character ;  and  especially  to  Judas,  -vvho 
entered  into  a  formal  compact  with  them  on  the  Wednesday 
following,  to  perform  his  part  in  the  final  scene. 

Matt.  xxi.  18—20;  Mark  xi.  12—14,  20,  21.  The  wither- 
ing of  the  barren  fig-tree. 

The  miracle  recorded  in  these  verses  was  witnessed  only  by 
our  Lord's  disciples.  Mark  xi.  14.  It  was  wrought  apparently 
for  the  purpose  of  conveying  to  them  the  instruction  contained 
in  the  next  two  verses,  verses  21,  22.  If  we  regard  the  tree 
as  a  symbol  of  the  nation,  and  the  malediction  as  indicative  of 
the  nation's  doom,  until  the  end  of  this  dispensation,  the  time 
of  the  act  may  be  significant.  Our  Lord  had  entered  Jerusa- 
lem, the  day  before,  as  her  King,  but  he  was  not  received  in 
that  character,  except  by  the  children.  The  multitudes  hailed 
him  only  as  the  prophet  of  Nazareth,  while  the  rulers  plotted 
against  his  life.  John  xii.  36.  With  that  day,  therefore,  the 
day  of  their  national  visitation  ended,  and  before  he  entered 
the  city  again,  he  portrayed  in  the  fig-tree  the  nation's  doom. 
The  parable  of  the  fig-tree,  in  Luke  xiii.  6 — 10,  at  least  favours 
the  symbolical  interpretation  of  this  miracle,  although  we  can- 
not, as  before  intimated,  find  ground  for  such  an  interpretation 
in  the  context.  See  Matt.  xxi.  42,  43.  Nor  is  it  probable 
the  disciples,  at  that  time,  saw  more  in  the  miracle  than  an 
exhibition  of  power  which  the  Saviour  taught  them  they  would 
be  able  to  exercise  through  faith  in  him ;  and  thus  considered, 
we  understand  in  the  literal  sense  the  following  verse: 

Matt.  xxi.  2L  "Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  If  ye  have  faith, 
and  doubt  not,  ye  shall  not  only  do  this,  which  is  done  to  the 
fig-tree,  but  also  if  ye  shall  say  to  this  mountain.  Be  thou 
removed,  and  be  thou  cast  into  the  sea,  it  shall  be  done."  See 
Mark  xi.  22,  23. 

This  is  teaching  by  example;  a  method  .which  excludes 
hyperbole.  Yet,  as  before  intimated,  the  promise  has  respect 
to  the  glorified  elect  in  the  world  to  come.  See  notes  on  Matt, 
xiv.  30,  31;  John  xiv.  12.  If,  indeed,  we  assume  that  our 
Lord,  in  this  promise,  had  respect  to  his  believing  people  in 


248  NOTES   ON    SCRIPTURE. 

this  world,  then  it  must  be  confessed  it  has  never  been  realized, 
even  in  the  holiest  of  men,  1  Cor.  xiii.  2,  and  we  feel  con- 
strained by  the  fact,  to  divest  it  of  its  proper  literal  meaning. 
What  our  Lord  added  to  these  words,  however,  may  be  intended 
to  describe  the  power  of  faith  in  this  life. 

Matt.  xxi.  28.  "And  all  things  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  in 
'prayer^  believing,  ye  shall  receive." 

Here  prayer  is  added  to  faith,  as  a  means  to  the  end.  On  a 
former  occasion,  Matt.  xvii.  21,  see  notes,  he  prescribed /«s^m^ 
as  well  as  prayer,  but  in  that  case,  with  reference  to  their  exer- 
cise of  miraculous  powers  in  this  life.  But  in  this  verse,  the 
Saviour  seems  to  speak  only  of  believing  prayer;  and  thus 
understood,  there  is  no  reason. why  we  should  confine  the 
promise  to  the  apostles,  any  more  than  we  should  the  injunction 
to  forgive,  which  Mark  adds,  xi.  25.  The  promise  of  our  Lord, 
thus  interpreted,  extends  to  the  Avhole  futurity  of  the  believer's 
being — to  his  state  of  humility  and  suffering  in  this  life,  and  to 
his  state  of  glory  in  the  ages  to  come.  We  may  add,  the 
largeness  of  our  Lord's  conceptions,  including,  as  they  ever 
did,  his  whole  work,  favours  this  interpretation.  All  his  pro- 
mises to  his  elect  took  hold  of  unfathomable  mysteries. 

Matt.  xxi.  23 — xxv.  46. 

The  matters  recorded  by  this  Evangelist,  beginning  at  this 
place,  and  ending  with  chapter  xxiii.,  are  commonly  supposed 
to  have  occurred  on  (Tuesday)  the  third  day  before  the  pass- 
over.  Our  Lord's  prophecy  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
delivered  privately  to  four  of  his  disciples,  Peter,  James,  John, 
and  Andrew,  Mark  xiii.  3,  and  the  parables  he  subjoined  to  it. 
Matt.  xxiv.  and  xxv.,  are  assigned  to  the  same  day.  On  this 
day,  (according  to  some  Harmonists,  but  according  to  others  on 
the  day  following — Wednesday)  the  priests.  Scribes,  and  elders 
of  the  people  were  formally  convened  at  the  palace  of  the 
chief -priest.  Matt.  xxvi.  3,  to  devise  means  for  the  apprehension 
of  the  Lord  Jesus,  when  Judas  sought  admission  to  the  assem- 
bly, and  entered  into  a  formal  compact  with  them.  Matt.  xxvi. 
14 — 1(3.  On  the  day  preceding,  (Monday)  the  Lord  had 
expelled  the  traders  and  money-changers  from  the  temple,  and, 
as  we  may  infer,  from  Mark  xi.  18,  taught  the  people,  but  what 
he  taught  them,  does  not  appear.  Mark  xi.  15 — 19.  The  day 
before,  (Sunday)  he  had  entered  the  temple  amid  the  shoutings 
of  the  people,  and  having  taken  a  survey  of  it,  without  teach- 
ing, or,  according  to  Mark,  performing  any  other  act,  he  retired 
to  Bethany  with  the  twelve.  John,  xii.  20 — 36,  however, 
records  an  impassioned  discourse  to  the  people  on  that  day, 
which,  if  we  may  consider  it  in  connection  with  his  triumphal 
entry,  shows  how  he  was  affected  by  the  hosannas  which  had 


CHKIST   IS    QUESTIONED    BY   THE    PRIESTS.  249 

been  offered  him.  But  not  to  dwell  on  these  circumstantial 
notices,  vre  remark  that  the  reader  will  not  appreciate  the  sub- 
limity of  this  portion  of  the  Gospel,  without  a  profound  sense 
of  the  majesty  of  our  Lord's  person,  and  the  solemnity  of  the 
crisis  the  nation  had  reached.  It  was  the  last  day  of  our  Lord's 
public  ministry.  Several  hours  before  the  close  of  it,  and  we 
doubt  not,  before  the  hour  of  evening  prayer,  he  took  his  final 
leave  of  the  temple,  declaring  it  left  desolate.  The  death  of 
John  the  Baptist,  we  have  seen,  was  an  epoch  in  the  n.ation's 
history.  It  marked  their  near  approximation  to  the  verge  of 
destruction,  and  their  certain  downfall.  See  notes  on  Matt.  xiv. 
6 — 9.  Now  the  crisis  had  come.  In  an  important  sense,  it 
was  the  nation's  day  of  judgment.  For  although  the  Lord  did 
not  enter  the  temple  on  that  day  officially  to  judge  the  nation, 
yet  he  entered  it  to  pronounce  w^ords  of  reprobation  and  pun- 
ishment, by  commandment  of  the  Father,  which,  in  the  course 
of  Divine  Providence,  were  soon  to  be  put  in  execution,  with 
fearful  and  prolonged  effect.  Luke  xxi.  22.  Accordingly,  the 
language  he  employed  was  positive,  direct,  and  judicially 
denunciatory. 

We  must  not  regard  the  words  he  uttered  as  the  languao-e  of 
strife  or  mvective,  nor  his  responses  to  his  assailants  as  an 
exhibition  of  dialectic  skill.  This  would  be  a  low  view, 
infinitely  beneath  the  dignity  and  majesty  of  his  character,  and 
quite  at  variance  with  the  solemn  function  he  was  performing. 
He  was  the  Son  of  Man,  and  the  rightful  Lord  of  the  world. 
He  was  the  Christ,  and  in  that  relation  the  king  of  Israel. 
He  was  the  Minister  of  God  the  Father,  performing,  by  Divine 
command,  the  last  public,  ofiicial  act  of  his  ministry.  John 
xii.  49,  50.  A  tone  of  authority,  power,  and  majesty,  pervades 
all  his  sayings  on  that  day,  and  his  words  did  but  convey  to 
them  God's  reasons  for  the  fearful  calamities  he  was  about  to 
send  upon  the  nation.     Wo  return  now  to  the  text. 

Matt.  xxi.  23.  "  And  when  he  was  come  into  the  temple,  the 
chief  priest  and  the  elders  of  the  people  came  unto  him  as  he 
was  teaching,  and  said.  By  wdiat  authority  doest  thou  these 
things,  and  who  gave  thee  this  authority?" 

Our  Lord  left  Bethany  (rrfxaia^)  early  in  the  morning,  verse 
18.  The  impression  his  preaching  had  made  on  the  people  was 
very  deep.  Luke  xix.  48.  In  the  expressive  language  of  Luke 
[i^sxoe/mzo)  they  hung  upon  him,  and  assembled  very  early 
{loodfH^s,  Luke  xxi.  38,)  to  hear  him.  We  may  rensonably 
suppose  he  had  been  engaged  a  considerable  time  in  teaching, 
before  the  dignitaries  of  the  nation  appeared  at  the  temple, 
with  their  demand,  which  seems  to  have  been  ofiicially  made. 
The  motive  for  making  it  may  have  been,  in  part,  at  least,  to 
32 


250  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

counteract  his  influence  with  the  people,  which  they  greatly 
feared,  xxvi.  5 ;  John  xii.  19 — and  if  so,  they  would  be  likely 
to  make  it  with  a  stately  show  of  their  own  authority,  to  impress 
the  people,  and  perhaps  also  with  the  vain  conceit  of  producing 
awe  in  the  mind  of  Jesus.  However  this  may  be,  the  demand 
interrupted  his  discourse  to  the  people,  and  drew  their  attention 
to  his  discourse  with  the  priests  and  elders  which  followed. 
It  was  a  new  step  upon  the  part  of  the  rulers,  and  calculated 
to  create  the  apprehension  that  it  would  be  followed  by  violence. 
According  to  Mark's  account,  which  doubtless  is  accurate,  on 
this  occasion  also  our  Lord  drove  out  of  the  temple  the  traders 
and  money-changers.  There  is  nothing  incredible  in  the  sup- 
position that  the  mercenary  people  he  had  cast  out  the  day 
before,  according  to  Matthew's  account,  had  returned,  or  that 
others  had  taken  their  place;  and  this  is  the  view  we  take  of 
the  matter.  See  notes  on  verse  12.  This  demand  of  the 
priests,  therefore,  referred  rather  to  this  act  of  authority,  than 
to  his  assumption  of  the  office  of  a  teacher,  and  thus  understood, 
it  may  be  paraphrased  thus: — "By  what  authority  dost  thou 
forbid  and  prevent  that  which  we,  the  lawful  guardians  of  this 
holy  place,  have  seen  proper  to  permit ;  and  who  gave  thee 
authority  to  interfere  with,  and  overrule  our  regulations  ?" 

The  demand  for  his  authority  was  a  demand  for  eviderice  of 
his  authority.  It  implied,  that  the  miraculous  works  which  he 
had  performed  before  them  in  the  temple,  verse  14,  and  during 
the  whole  of  his  public  ministry,  of  which  it  must  be  supposed 
they  had  personal  knowledge,  were  not  sufficient  evidence  to 
satisfy  their  minds.  Therefore,  had  the  Saviour  replied  to  the 
demand — "My  works  show  my  authority.  They  testify  of  me; 
who  I  am,  and  whence  I  came.  They  are  such  as  no  man  ever 
did," — this  would  have  been  but  repeating  what  he  had  often 
told  them  before,  and  what  they  had  rejected  as  sufficient  proof 
of  his  Divine  mission.  They  regarded  them,  or  aflected  to 
regard  them,  in  another  light.  Hence,  our  Lord  replied  by 
asking  them  another  question. 

Matt.  xxi.  24.  "  And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them: 
I  also  will  ask  you  one  thing,  which  if  ye  will  tell  me,  I  in 
like  wise  will  tell  you  by  what  authority  I  do  these  things." 

As  if  he  had  said:  Seeing  you  judge,  that  my  works,  per- 
formed in  your  presence,  do  not  prove  my  authority  to  do  these 
things,  nor  show  whence  I  derive  it,  I  also  will  ask  you  one 
thing,  your  answer  to  which  will  prove,  whether  you  can  be 
convinced  of  my  authority,  by  any  evidence  which  God  has 
seen  proper  to  give  you  upon  that  question  :  for  other  or  greater 
evidence  you  cannot  have. 


Christ's  response  to  the  priests.  251 

Matt.  xxi.  25.  "The  baptism  of  Jolin:  whence  was  it? 
From  heaven  or  from  men?" 

The  reader  must  remember  that  the  whole  evidence  which 
God  saw  proper  to  give  the  Jews  of  the  Divine  mission  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,  was  comprised  in  the  ministry  or  baptism  of  John, 
and  his  own  ministry,  especially  his  miraculous  works.  This 
has  been  sufficiently  shown  in  the  foregoing  notes.  Especially 
did  our  Lord  rely  upon  his  works,  placing  them  not  only  above 
the  testimony  of  John,  but  his  own  words.  John  v.  30 — 37 ; 
XV.  24.  No  other  signs  from  heaven  of  his  authority  were  con- 
sistent with  the  Divine  plan.  Matt.  xvi.  1 — 4,  and  see  notes  on 
Matt.  xii.  48.  It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  if  the  questioners 
were  not  convinced  by  the  miracles  of  the  Lord,  and  their  ques- 
tion, as  we  have  said,  assumes  that  they  were  not,  the  only 
remaining  source  of  proof  was  the  ministry  or  baptism  of 
John.  This,  though  inferior  evidence  to  miracles,  was  in  its 
nature  and  power  a  sufficient  attestation  of  the  Divine  mission 
of  Jesus.     See  notes  on  Matt.  iii.  1,  2 ;  xi.  3. 

Some  commentators  suppose  that  the  turn  which  our  Lord 
gave  to  the  question  of  the  priests  and  elders  was  designed  to 
put  them  in  a  strait  between  their  malice  and  their  fears — an 
effect  which  it  had.  But  the  motive  of  the  Saviour,  as  we  con- 
ceive, lay  deeper.  His  question  was  pertinent  to  their  ques- 
tion— their  question  being  considered  with  reference  to  the  only 
evidence  upon  which  it  could  possibly  be  resolved.  It  was  de- 
signed to  prove  out  of  their  own  mouth  that  neither  the  testi- 
mony of  John,  nor  his  own  wonderful  works  could  convince 
them ;  and  without  these,  his  own  verbal  declaration  of  his 
authority  would  be,  even  in  his  own  view,  of  no  avail.  John 
V.  31;  xiv.  11;  xv.  24. 

Mati.  xxi.  25,  26.  "  And  they  reasoned  with  themselves, 
saying,  If  we  shall  say.  From  heaven,  he  will  say.  Why  did  ye 
not  then  believe  him  ?  But  if  we  shall  say.  From  men,  we 
fear  the  people;  for  all  hold  John  as  a  prophet." 

Some,  perhaps  most,  readers  take  it  for  granted,  the  Saviour 
would  have  replied  as  the  priests  and  elders  surmised  he  would, 
if  they  had  answered  his  question  truly.  By  such  a  reply  they 
would  no  doubt  have  publicly  convicted  themselves  of  enormous 
guilt,  but  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  his  answer  to  them 
would  have  been  such  as  they  imagined.  Certainly  he  would 
have  fulfilled  his  promise,  and  shown  them  his  authority,  and 
perhaps  have  made  it  convincing  to  them  by  his  power  over 
their  hearts.  Had  they  overcome  their  fears,  and  answered  his 
question,  as  they  desired  to  do,  falsely,  though  they  would  not 
have  fulfilled  the  condition  upon  which  his  promise  depended, 
yet  he  might  have  told  ihem,  in  reply,  that  no  further  evidence 


252  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

could  be  given  them  of  his  authority,  but  that  which  was  fur- 
nished by  the  baptism  and  ministry  of  John  and  his  own  works, 
both  of  which  they  had  rejected.  See  Matt.  xvi.  1 — 4,  and 
notes.  That  they  would  have  answered  the  question  falsely, 
had  they  not  been  restrained  by  their  fears,  is  evident,  not  only 
from  their  treatment  of  John,  but  from  the  form  of  our  Lord's 
reply. 

Matt.  xxi.  27.  "  And  they  answered  Jesus  and  said  [oux 
ocoafuv,~\  We  cannot  tell,"  [rather,  "We  do  not  know."] 

According  to  this  answer,  the  baptism  of  John  might  have 
been  of  Divine  origin,  for  aught  they  knew  to  the  contrary. 
Their  rejection  of  him,  therefore,  was  not  only  extremely  rash, 
considering  the  effect  of  his  ministry  upon  the  minds  of  the 
people,  but  guilty,  in  not  giving  due  heed  to  the  evidence  they 
had  upon  a  matter  of  so  great  moment.  If  we  assume,  how- 
ever, that  their  answer  was  insincere — that  they  really  did 
believe  that  John's  baptism  was  without  a  heavenly  warrant,  it 
would  prove  that  the  evidence  of  John's  authority  was  inef- 
fectual to  produce  conviction  in  their  minds,  as  the  miracles  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  were ;  and  also,  that  their  unbelief  and  obduracy 
were  insurmountable  by  the  combined  force  of  all  the  evidence 
God  had  seen  proper  to  give  them. 

Matt.  xxi.  27.  "And  he  said  unto  them,  Neither  tell*  I 
you  by  what  authority  I  do  these  things." 

Our  Lord  kneAv  their  thoughts  and  answered  them  according 
to  their  intent,  and  not  according  to  their  words.  He  assumed, 
however,  the  Divine  authority  of  John's  mission,  as  well  as  his 
own ;  which  in  eifect  he  connected  together  as  one  in  purpose 
and  intent,  so  far  as  they  respected  the  nation,  by  his  question. 
The  admission  or  denial  of  John's  authority  was  in  effect  the 
admission  or  denial  of  his  own,  John  v.  33,  36,  and  a  doubt 
concerning  either,  was  a  doubt  which  could  not  be  removed  by 
additional  evidence:   Hence  the  appositeness  of  the  reply. 

Matt.  xxi.  28 — 31.  Having  thus  disposed  of  the  question 
proposed  to  him  by  the  chief-priests  and  elders,  our  Lord  put 
to  them  an  hypothetical  case  taken  from  common  life,  upon 
which  he  framed  another  question  in  such  terms,  that  it  could 
receive  only  one  answer.  "But  what  think  ye?"  What  would 
be  your  opinion  in  this  case?  "A  man  had  two  sons,  and  going 
to  the  first,  he  said,  Son,  go  to  work  to-day  in  my  vineyard. 
He  answered  and  said,  I  will  not ;  but  afterwards  he  repented, 
and  went.  Then  going  to  the  second,  he  said  [likewise]  the 
same.  And  he  answered  and  said,  I  go,  sir,  but  went  not. 
Which  of  the  two  did  the  will  of  the  father?" 

*  An  old  commentator  notes  on  this  verse :  ohx,  ilmv,  ouk  oU-x,  Lkk',  c'u  Kiyrn — 

will  TOU  iilK  ii^wKn^urt  TO  dKH^H  t'lTTUV, 


THE   NATION    REJECT   HIM.  253 

This  case  was  put  with  tacit  reference  to  the  Jewish  people, 
considered  under  two  divisions — the  rulers  and  the  ruled — the 
priests,  Pharisees,  lawyers,  Luke  vii,  29,  30,  and  the  learned 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  common  people,  including  the  lowest 
and  most  despised  classes  of  them,  on  the  other.  John  vii. 
45 — 49.  The  former  were,  by  outward  profession,  the  servants 
of  God,  and  the  acknowledged  ministers  of  his  religion — the 
teachers  and  guides  of  all  classes  of  the  common  people.  Matt, 
xxiii.  2,  3.  Upon  all  questions  of  religious  worship  and  duty, 
their  decisions  were  authoritative  and  decisive.  The  appearance 
and  public  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist,  were  extraordinary 
and  startling  events.  They  were  so  regarded  by  all.  He 
summoned  the  nation  to  a  new  baptism,  which  was  a  religious 
rite,  well  known  to  them.  But  by  what  authority  ?  That  was 
the  great  question.  The  priests,  rulers,  and  teachers  of  the 
people  claimed  the  right  to  decide  it  as  they  did  other  questions 
connected  with  religion ;  and  the  masses  of  the  people,  it  is 
probable,  would  have  easily  acquiesced  in  their  decision,  had 
not  John's  authority  been  authenticated  by  the  most  ample  and 
convincing  proofs.  See  notes  on  Matt.  iii.  1.  The  rulers  did 
decide  the  question,  but  the  people  almost  universally,  Luke 
iii.  21;  Matt.  iii.  5,  6,  rejected  unhesitatingly  and  strongly 
their  decision,  and  as  a  proof  of  their  sincerity,  sought  him  and 
submitted  to  his  baptism. 

But  the  contrast  which  our  Lord  intended  to  make  was  not 
between  the  rulers  and  the  masses  of  the  people  generally,  but 
between  the  rulers  and  those  whom  they  regarded  as  the  lowest 
and  vilest  of  the  common  people,  who  led  openly  irreligious 
and  immoral  lives;  thereby  showing  not  only  no  profession  of 
service,  but  that  they  had  no  sense  of  religious  obligation. 
Accordingly,  upon  receiving  the  answer  of  priests  and  elders, 
he  said,  verse  31,  "  I  say  unto  you,  the  publicans  and  the  har- 
lots go  into  the  kingdom  of  God  before  you," 

As  if  he  had  said,  "  You  priests  and  elders  who  profess  to  be 
the  servants  of  God,  and  the  guardians  of  the  temple  of  God, 
promise  well  indeed,  but  you  perform  not,  and  however  highly 
you  think  of  yourselves,  are  farther  from  the  kingdom  of  God 
than  the  publicans  and  harlots  whom  you  despise." 

Matt.  xxi.  32.  "For"  when  "John  came  unto  you  in  the 
way  of  righteousness,"  [that  is,  in  the  divinely-appointed  way 
of  bringing  in  everlasting  righteousness]  "ye  believed  him 
not,"  [on  the  contrary,  ye  rejected  all  the  proofs  which  God 
gave  you  of  his  Divine  mission,  although  they  convinced  every 
one  but  you,  for]  "even  the  publicans  and  harlots  believed 
him;  but  ye,  when  ye  had  seen,"  [and  had  had  ample  oppor- 
tunity to    consider   those  proofs,  notwithstanding  your  large 


254  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

professions  of  obedience,]  "repented  not,  that  ye  might  believe 
in  him."  Therefore,  "publicans  and  harlots  go  into  the  king- 
dom of  God  before  you." 

On  this  occasion,  our  Lord  referred  for  the  last  time,  so  far 
as  we  know,  to  the  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist;  and  the 
reader  will  observe  he  does  so  in  connection  with  his  own.  As 
on  a  former  occasion,  see  Matt.  xi.  10 — 14  and  notes,  so  now, 
he  bears  the  strongest  testimony  to  John's  authority.  Then, 
indeed,  John,  though  imprisoned,  was  in  the  midst  of  them.  It 
was  not  too  late  tlien  for  the  nation  to  receive  him.  But  now  he 
speaks  of  John's  ministry  as  a  bygone  matter,  as  an  opportunity 
neglected  and  gone  beyond  recall.  The  rejection  of  John,  we 
have  seen,  was  in  eflFect  the  rejection  of  the  Lord  himself,  see 
notes  on  Matt.  xiv.  10,  and  so  he  treated  it,  as  appears  by  the 
next  parable,  verses  33 — 39.  All  questions,  therefore,  touch- 
ing his  authority  or  the  authority  of  John  came  too  late.  No 
answer  could  have  served  any  interest  which  they  had  at  stake. 
By  employing  the  words  we  are  considering,  our  Lord  assumed 
that  the  day  of  national  visitation  was  over,  and  the  hope  of 
Israel,  as  a  nation,  gone  for  that  time.  The  only  hope  of  sal- 
vation that  remained  was  individual  and  personal,  which  might 
be  entertained  by  some  on  better  grounds  than  by  others.  But 
of  all  classes,  the  priests  and  the  rulers  had  the  least  reason  to 
expect  the  Divine  favour,  less  even  than  publicans  and  harlots. 
In  this  truth,  thus  plainly  declared,  not  in  anger  or  invective, 
but  as  the  Divine  estimation,  John  xii.  48,  49,  of  their  char- 
acter and  condition,  the  severity  of  the  comparison  consisted. 

Having  told  the  dignitaries  of  the  nation,  in  the  plainest  lan- 
guage, their  true  character  and  condition  in  the  sight  of  God, 
our  Lord  passes  immediately  to  the  nation  itself.  The  transi- 
tion was  easy  and  natural.  In  all  their  generations,  from  the 
commencement  of  their  covenant-relations  as  the  elect  people 
of  God,  the  governing  powers  of  the  nation  had  been  corrupt 
and  rebellious.  It  was  only  through  the  mercy  and  forbear- 
ance of  God  that  it  had  been  reserved  to  that  generation  to  fill 
up  the^  measure  of  their  national  sins.  See  Matt,  xxiii.  30 — 32. 
With  equal  plainness,  therefore,  our  Lord  proceeds  to  pronounce 
the  nation's  punishment,  which,  so  far  as  declared  on  this  occa- 
sion, consisted  chiefly  in  the  deprivation  of  the  privileges  con- 
tained in  the  covenant  of  the  kingdom,  verse  43.  This  is  the 
drift  or  general  import  of  the  parable  of  the  vineyard,  verses 
33 — 41.  The  loss,  of  necessity-,  fell  upon  the  people  com- 
posing the  nation,  and  it  came  upon  them  mediately,  or  instru- 
mentally,  through  their  rulers,  yet  not  without  individual 
participation  in  the  national  sins.  The  people,  in  all  their 
generations,  had  concurred  in,  or  assented  to,  the  sins  of  their 


THE  PARABLE  OF  THE  VINEYARD.  255 

rulers,  and  oftentimes  instigated  them;  although,  in  the  matter 
of  John  the  Baptist's  ministry,  their  guilt  did  not  consist  in 
concurring  with  their  rulers,  but  in  their  not  receiving  him 
with  the  obedience  of  faith.  See  notes  on  Matt.  xi.  14.  This 
lack  of  faith  was  a  sinful  defect,  and  the  cause  of  their  similar 
treatment  of  the  Lord  himself.  We  have  seen  that,  from  the 
death  of  John  the  Baptist,  our  Lord  changed  his  public  min- 
istry from  the  nation,  in  its  public  capacity,  to  the  people,  in 
their  individual  and  personal  relations.  He  offered  himself, 
thenceforth,  as  Son  of  Man  and  Saviour  to  all  who  would 
receive  him;  and  to  enforce  his  appeals,  he  wrought  new 
miracles  more  impressive  upon  the  popular  mind  than  any  he 
had  previously  wrought.  They  were  even  persuaded  that  he 
was  "that  prophet  that  should  come  into  the  world."  John 
vi.  14;  see  the  notes  on  Matt.  xiv.  10,  14;  xv.  30;  xvi.  4. 
From  that  time  especially,  if  not  exclusively,  they  were  put 
upon  their  individual  personal  responsibilities.  Every  one 
who  did  not  receive  him  with  the  obedience  of  the  heart,  was 
guilty  of  rejecting  him,  and  justly  incm-red  the  penalty  of  the 
sin.  To  this  latter  portion  of  our  Lord's  ministry,  commencing 
at  the  death  of  John,  we  suppose  the  parable  of  the  marriage, 
in  the  next  chapter,  especially  applies,  although  not  without 
some  allusion  to  the  previous  portion  of  it.  That  parable 
represents  the  people,  one  and  all,  as  making  light  of  it,  pre- 
ferring their  ordinary  occupations  and  the  ephemeral  concerns 
of  this  life  to  the  glory  of  the  kingdom  he  offered  them.  Matt, 
xxiii.  5.  The  three  parables  are  necessary  to  complete  the 
subject  of  our  Lord's  discourse.  Taken  together,  they  cover 
the  Avhole  ground  of  condemnation,  whether  we  consider  the 
people  in  their  national  capacity,  and  as  the  children  of  the 
covenant — as  rulers  or  subjects,  or  as  individuals  responsible 
for  their  personal  sins.  They  are  the  last  our  Lord  publicly 
delivered,  and  explain  the  reasons  of  the  dreadful  judgments 
which  were  soon  to  be  sent  upon  them.  These  observations 
premised,  we  proceed  with  the  exposition. 

Matt.  xxi.  33 — 41.     The  parable  of  the  vineyard. 

This  parable  may  remind  the  reader  of  Isaiah  v.  1 — 8,  from 
which  the  imagery  of  it  was,  perhaps,  designedly  borrowed. 
It  is  an  allegory  of  God's  dealings  with  Israel,  from  the  time 
he  entered  into  covenant  with  them,  at  Horeb,  Exod.  xix.  1 — 5, 
and  of  their  conduct,  as  the  people  of  the  covenant,  to  the  close 
of  our  Lord's  ministry.  But  the  chief  or  finishing  stroke  of 
the  representation  is  designed  to  set  forth  the  end  of  his  own 
mission  and  the  most  atrocious  and  heaven-daring  of  the  nation's 
sins.  It  does  not  come  within  the  purpose  of  these  notes  to 
explain  minutely  the  material  circumstances  of  the  parable,  or 


256  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 

to  trace  throughout  the  resemblance  between,  the  allegory  and 
the  historical  events  it  compendiously  represents.  The  moral 
or  application  of  the  parable  is  too  obvious  to  be  mistaken. 
The  chief  priests  and  Pharisees  plainly  perceived  it.  They 
could  not  fail  to  do  so  after  our  Lord  had  declared  its  import. 

In  general,  it  may  be  remarked  that,  by  the  mission  of  ser- 
vants, verse  34,  we  are  to  understand  the  raising  up  and 
sending  of  prophets  to  the  people,  which  may  be  supposed  to 
commence  with  Samuel,  see  Acts  iii.  24,  in  the  days  of  Eli, 
about  1130  B.  c,  from  whose  days,  till  the  return  from  the 
Captivity  at  Babylon,  about  536  b.  C,  the  succession  of  pro- 
phets was  almost,  if  not  quite,  uninterrupted.* 

The  book  of  Esther  closes  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures.  By  wdiom  it  was  written  we  do  not  know;  but 
undoubtedly  by  an  inspired  person.  After  the  close  of  the 
canon  we  have  not  so  sure  means  of  tracing  the  succession  of 
heaven-sent  messengers,  but  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
God,  at  any  time,  left  the  people  without  prophets,  or  wise  men, 
or  scribes,  who  were  faithful  witnesses  of  his  truth,  see  Matt. 
xxiii.  34,  during  the  succeeding  interval  which  was  terminated 
by  the  appearance  of  John.  Such  w^itnesses,  whatever  their 
office  or  character,  would  be  aptly  represented  by  the  servants 
of  the  parable. 

Matt.  xxi.  37.  "But  last  of  all  he  sent  his  son,  saying 
[certainly]  They  will  reverence  my  son." 

It  cannot  be  necessary  to  remark  that  the  son  represents  our 
blessed  Lord  himself.     And  when  we  consider  the  majesty  of 

*  The  reader  may  satisfy  himself  of  the  correctness  of  this  remark  by  refer- 
ring to  the  following  passages,  according  to  Townsend's  chronological  arrange- 
ment of  the  Old  Testament:  1  Sam.  xxviii.  6.  15;  xxii.  5;  1  Chron.  xxix.  29; 
2  Chron.  xxix.  25;  2  Sam.  xxiv.  11— U;  1  Chron.  xxi.  9—13;  2  Sam.  vii.  2; 
1  Kings  i. ;  1  Chron.  ix.  29 ;  xvii.  1 ;  2  Chron.  xxix.  25,  29 ;  1  Kings  iv.  5 ; 
xi.  29;  1  Chron.  ix.  29;  2  Kings  xiv.  2—4;  1  Kings  xiii.  1,  11—18,  10—22, 
26—32;  2  Chron.  ix.  29;  xii.  15;  xiii.  22  ;  2  Kings  xii.  22;  2  Chron.  xi.  2; 
xii.  5,  7,  15 ;  xv,  1 — 8 ;  xvi.  7  ;  1  Kings  xvi.  1,  7 — 12  ;  2  Chron.  xix,  2 ;  xx.  84  ; 

1  Kings  xvii  1 ;  2  Kings  i.  3 ;  2  Chron.  xxi.  12 — 15;  1  Kings  xiv.  25:  xviii. 
4,   13,   19—40;    xix.  16.  19—22;    xvi.  33;    xx.  13—22,  28,  35,  41;  xxii.  8; 

2  Chron.  xviii.  7;  2  Kings  ii.  3,  5,  7,  9—15,  16;  xiii.  14—25;  iv.  1,  38; 
ix.  1—4 ;  2  Chron.  xxiv.  20—22  ;  xxv.  7,  15;  Amos  i.  1 :  vii.  9—11 :  Hos.  1.  1 ; 
2  Kings  xviii.  10;  Isa.  i.  1 ;  vi.  1 ;  vii.  1 ;  xiv.  28;  xx.  1 ;  xxxv.  1 ;  2  Kings 
xix.  2;  2  Chron.  xxvi.  22,  5;  xxviii.  9;  Mic.  i.  1;  Jer.  xxvi.  18;  2  Kings 
xxi.  10;  Jer.  i.  2,  3;  iii.  6;  xxi  1;  xxii.  11,  24,  28;  xxv.  1,  3;  xxvi.  1; 
xxvii.  20 ;  xliii.;  2  Chron.  xxxv.  25 ;  xxxvi.  21 ;  Zeph.  i.  1 :  2  Kings  xxii.  3,  14 ; 
2  Chron.  xxxiv.  22 ;  Jer.  xxvi.  20—33 ;  Ezek.  i.  1,  2 ;  xl.  1 ;  Dan.  i.  1—21 ; 
vi.  28;  ix.  1;  x.  1  ;  Hagg.  i.  1,  15;  ii.-l,  10,  19,  20;  Zech.  i.  1,  7 ;  vii.  1; 
Ezra  V.  1;  vi.  14;  Neh.  viii.  2,  9;  xii.  26,  36;  Ezra  vii.  1,  7,  8;  Neh.  i.  1  ; 
ii.  1 ;  V.  14,  xiii.  6;  viii.  2 — 9;  vi.  7,  14.  Several  of  the  foregoing  references 
have  been  repeated  on  account  of  the  connection  they  have  with  others.  These 
references  are  sufficient  to  put  the  reader  on  the  track  of  inquiry;  and  they 
will  throw  light  upon  Matt,  xxiii.  34,  35. 


THE   PARABLE   OF   THE   VINEYARD.  257 

his  person  as  the  Son  of  Man,  the  Adam  of  the  everlasting 
covenant — his  Divine  wisdom  and  his  wonderful  works — his 
infinite  superiority  to  the  greatest  of  the  prophets,  Matt.  iii.  11; 
xi.  11,  there  would  be  great  reason  to  anticipate  his  favourable 
reception.  The  result  of  our  Lord's  ministry  among  the  Jews 
proves  beyond  all  doubt  the  incurable  depravity  of  the  human 
heart,  except  by  the  creative  energies  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
this  is  vividly  represented  by  the  reasoning  ascribed  to  the 
husbandmen  in  the  parable.  Reverence  they  had  none,  and 
the  householder  erred  in  calculating  upon  it.  In  this  point  the 
analogy  of  the  parable  fails.  The  issue  of  our  Lord's  mission 
was  not  only  certainly  foreknown,  but  predetermined  in  the 
Divine  counsels.  Acts  ii.  23;  xv.  18.  Our  Lord,  therefore, 
designed  merely  to  intimate  the  reasonableness  of  such  expecta- 
tions according  to  man's  judgment — the  guilt  of  the  husbandmen 
in  disappointing  them — and  the  equity  of  the  Divine  procedure 
even  when  considered  according  to  the  low  standard  of  earthly 
analogies.  It  was  with  this  view  of  the  circumstance,  as  we 
conceive,  the  Evangelist  records  the  response  of  the  people, 
verse  41.* 

Matt.  xxi.  39.  "  And  they  caught  him,  and  cast  him  out 
of  the  vineyard,  and  slew  him."  See  Luke  xx.  15;  Mark 
xii.  8. 

We  incline  to  believe  our  Lord,  in  these  words,  had  especial 
allusion  to  his  approaching  sufferings  without  the  city.  Heb. 
xiii.  12.  There  was  a  typical  exigency  for  his  suffering  without 
the  gate,  which  he  might  well  represent  in  this  circumstance  of 
the  parable.  Mark,  it  is  true,  differs  from  the  other  Evangelists 
in  representing  the  husbandmen  as  first  killing  the  son,  and 
then  casting  him  out  of  the  vineyard:    and  perhaps  we  should 

*  There  appears  to  be  a  discrepancy  between  the  Evangelists  in  this  par- 
ticular. Matthew  ascribes  the  answer  in  verse  41  to  the  people ;  Mark  and 
Luke  ascribe  it  to  our  Lord  himself.  We  suppose  both  records  are  correct. 
Both  answers  may  have  been  given — one  by  some  of  the  bystanders,  as  Mat- 
thew relates,  and  the  other  by  our  Lord,  as  Mark  and  Luke  relate,  or  our 
Lord  may  have  adopted  the  answer  of  the  bystanders,  incorporating  it,  as  he 
proceeded,  into  his  own  discourse.  However  this  may  be,  the  discrepancy 
proves  that  the  stress  of  the  passage  does  not  lie  on  this  circumstance.  As 
uttered  by  our  Lord,  the  words  are  prophetical.  As  used  by  the  people, 
they  express  merely  the  reasonableness  of  such  punishment.  It  was  more 
important  to  Matthew's  purpose  to  record  the  popular  judgment  upon  the  case 
represented,  than  the  prophecy,  because  the  prophecy  involved  in  the  words, 
as  useil  by  our  Lord,  is  supplied  by  another  declaration  in  the  43d  and  44th 
verses,  and  also  by  the  parable  of  the  marriage,  which  he  proceeds  immediately 
to  record.  Matt.  xxii.  7.  Whereas  the  other  Evangelists  omit  the  parable  of 
the  marriage,  as  well  as  the  response  of  the  bystanders,  and  our  Lord's  other 
declaration,  recorded  by  Matthew  in  the  43d  verse,  substituting  for  all  these 
the  Saviour's  declaration  of  the  punishment  the  Lord  of  the  vineyard  would 
inflict  upon  the  husbandmen. 

33 


258  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTUKE. 

account  for  this  discrepancy,  as  we  did  for  that  just  noticed,  by 
supposing  that  the  stress  of  the  parable  does  not,  in  any  degree, 
lie  upon  this  circumstance.  We  prefer,  however,  another 
explanation.  Mark  wrote  his  Gospel  for  the  use  of  Gentile 
churches.  It  was  not  important  to  his  purpose,  nor  was  it  his 
intention,  as  we  suppose,  to  affirm  the  order  of  the  events,  or  do 
more  than  specify  the  fact  itself,  which  he  does  in  substantial 
consistency  with  the  record  of  Matthew.  Either  statement 
shows  a  contempt  of  the  rights  of  the  son,  and  equal  indignity 
to  his  person,  which  was  all  that  Mark  intended  to  show.  But 
Matthew  wrote  his  Gospel  especially  for  the  Hebrew  Christians, 
who  were  more  or  less  familiar  with  the  typical  signification  of 
their  ritual.  On  this  assumption  Paul  reasons,  in  the  passage 
just  before  cited  from  Heb.  xiii.  11,  12.  It  was  more  important, 
therefore,  for  such  readers  to  record  with  orderly  exactness 
this  part  of  the  parable,  knowing  the  use  that  would  be  made  of 
it  as  an  argument  with  that  people.  Hence  we  conclude  that, 
while  neither  Evangelist  contradicts  the  other,  the  especial 
views  with  which  they  wrote,  satisfactorily  account  for  the 
difference  between  them  in  this  as  well  as  many  other  par- 
ticulars. 

The  reader  will  observe,  that  the  crime  of  ejecting  and  killing 
the  Son,  is  ascribed  wholly  to  (the  Jews)  the  hrsbandmen.  In 
the  Divine  regard,  they  were  the  authors  of  it,  though  the 
Romans  acted  concurrently  with  the  Jewish  rulers,  and  so  the 
apostle  Peter  charged  it  upon  them.  Acts  ii.  23;  iii.  17,  18; 
V.  30.  There  was  a  needs-be,  that  the  nation  should  disown 
his  rights  and  their  obligations  before  the  Roman  governor 
could  have  any  power  over  him.  John  xix.  11,  and  see  notes  on 
that  verse.  We  observe  also,  the  tranquillity  with  which  our 
Lord  vividly  depicts  his  impending  sufferings.  He  was  speaking 
the  words  of  the  Father  as  his  minister,  not  his  own  words. 
John  xii.  49,  50 ;  xiii.  21.  On  another  occasion,  during  the 
same  day,  he  spake  of  them  as  a  man  having  the  susceptibilities 
of  our  nature  with  the  deepest  emotions.     See  John  xii.  27. 

Matt.  XXI.  42.  "Jesus  saith  unto  them:  Did  ye  never  read 
in  the  Scriptures,  The  stone  which  the  builders  rejected,  the 
same  is  become  the  head  of  the  corner:  this  is  the  Lord's 
doing,  and  it  is  marvellous  in  our  eyes?" 

Luke's  narrative  is  more  graphic.  After  relating  the  parable, 
and  the  question  the  Lord  put  upon  it,  he  represents  him  as 
answering  his  own  question,  which  drew  from  some  of  the 
bystanders  a  deprecatory  response  which  gave  occasion  for  this 
quotation  from  Psalm  cxviii.  22,  23.  We  may  paraphrase  the 
passage  thus :  "  What  then  shall  the  Lord  of  the  vineyard  do  to 
these  husbandmen?      I  will  tell  you  what  he  will  do  to  them: 


THE   PARABLE   OF  THE   VINEYARD.  259 

He  "will  come  and  destroy  them  and  give  the  vineyard  to 
others."  Hearing  this,  some  of  them  exclaimed,  God  forbid  it. 
But  He,  looking  intently  (i//^Ae^ac)  at  them,  said,  Does  the 
punishment  seem  to  you  severe?  What  then  is  the  meaning 
of  this  that  is  written  in-  the  Psalms:  the  stone  that  the 
builders  rejected  as  unworthy  a  place  in  God's  building,  the 
same  has  become,  in  spite  of  them,  the  very  head-stone  of  the 
corner. 

Substantially,  the  three  Evangelists  agree ;  all  of  them  nar- 
rate the  quotation  in  connection  with  the  parable,  and  as  exposi- 
tory of  its  meaning.  Luke  shows  its  particular  connection  with 
what  was  said  before.  The  seeming  discrepancy  arises  from 
the  different  degrees  of  particularity  observed  by  the  Evange- 
lists, in  narrating  the  same  matter.  It  has  already  been  suffi- 
ciently explained.     See  last  note. 

The  quotation  is  from  one  of  the  Messianic  Psalms ;  it  is  an 
allegory  taken  from  architecture,  as  the  parable  is  from  the 
business  of  agriculture  carried  on  by  tenants.  Both  figures 
are  combined  by  Paul  in  1  Cor.  iii.  9.  "For  we  are  co-laborers 
with  God"  in  cultivating  his  vineyard — in  erecting  his  building, 
the  Church.  See  Matt.  xvi.  18.  "Ye  are  God's  husbandry," 
or  tillage,  "Ye  are  God's  building."  A  building  is,  perhaps, 
the  most  common  figure  of  the  true  Church,  1  Pet.  ii.  5;  Eph. 
ii.  20 — 22;  iv.  16;  1  Cor.  iii.  16  ;  vi.  19,  taken,  as  we  suppose, 
from  our  Lord's  declaration.  Matt.  xvi.  18:  "On  this  founda- 
tion (oixodopr^aco)  I  ivill  build  my  Church,"  &c.  The  quotation 
.  we  are  considering  implies,  that  Israel,  as  a  nation,  were  first 
chosen  as  the  builders.  Their  election  to  this  service  was  con- 
nected with  exceeding  great  and  glorious  promises,  but  proving 
unfaithful  to  their  trust  in  all  their  generations,  they  forfeited 
their  privileges,  and  God  was  about  not  only  to  take  them 
away,  but  inflict  condign  punishment,  as  the  Lord  had  solemnly 
declared  at  the  conclusion  of  the  parable.  Luke  xx.  16; 
Mark  xii.  9. 

Matt.  xxi.  43.  "  Therefore  \_Jta  touto,  for  this  reason]  I 
say  unto  you,  The  kingdom  of  God,  which  was  first  promised  to 
you  as  a  nation,  shall  be  taken  from  you,"  [as  a  nation,  and] 
"shall  be  given  [i^vs;]  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  [tioiouijtc, 
making  or  producing]  the  fruits  thereof." 

This  declaration  of  the  Saviour  is  recorded  only  by  Matthew. 
It  stands  in  immediate  connection  with  the  quotation  from  the 
one  hundred  and  eighteenth  Psalm,  and  sets  forth  in  the  plainest 
language,  the  import  and  bearing  of  the  parable.  The  last 
clause  of  the  verse,  "bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof,"  shows 
the  connection.  The  chief  priests  and  the  pharisees,  if  they 
doubted   about    the  meaning   before,  could  doubt  no  longer, 


260  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

verse  45.  We  might,  perhaps,  without  marring  the  sense, 
transpose  this  verse,  so  as  to  read  it  in  connection  with  the 
41st  and  the  44th  verses,  in  connection  with  the  42d — although 
we  conceive  the  actual  arrangement  was  designed  to  interlock 
the  quotation  from  the  Psalm  with  the  parable,  and  then  to 
declare  the  moral  or  import  of  both  in  their  order. 

However  this  may  be,  the  verse,  taken  in  connection  with 
the  preceding  context,  declares  the  result  of  the  legal  dispensa- 
tion, which  is  the  great  lesson  of  the  parable.  That  dispensa- 
tion commenced  at  Horeb,  the  place  which  Israel  reached  on 
the  forty-seventh  day  after  their  exodus  from  Egypt,  amidst 
the  most  wonderful  displays  of  the  Divine  presence,  favour, 
and  power.  While  encamped  at  that  place,  the  law  was  de- 
livered to  them,  and  they  were  brought  into  new  covenant 
relations  with  God,  Moses  being  the  mediator.  Gal.  iii.  19.  It 
will  be  instructive  to  dwell  a  little  on  this  subject. 

The  blessings  which  God  covenanted  to  bestow  on  Israel, 
upon  the  condition  of  their  obedience,  are  here  summed  by  the 
Saviour  in  the  words  "The  kingdom  of  God" — for  it  was  the 
kingdom  of  Grod  he  declared  should  be  taken  from  them  in 
consequence  of  their  unfaithfulness,  according  to  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  parable.  The  substance  of  the  covenant  is 
contained  in  Exod.  vi.  7,  8,  and  more  fully  in  Exod.  xix.  5,  6,  8. 
"I  will  take  you  to  me  for  a  people,  and  I  will  be  to  you  a 
God."  "Now,  therefore,  if  ye  will  obey  my  voice  indeed,  and 
keep  my  covenant,  then  ye  shall  be  a  peculiar  treasure  unto 
me,  above  all  people:  for  all  the  earth  is  mine.  And  ye  shall 
be  unto  me  a  kingdom  of  priests  and  an  holy  nation."  And  all 
the  people  answered  together,  and  said,  "All  that  the  Lord 
hath  spoken,  we  will  do.  See  Exod.  xxiv.  3 — 8.  The  covenant 
thus  concluded  was  a  continuing  covenant.  It  embraced  not 
only  that  generation,  but  their  posterity  to  the  remotest  period. 
This  is  virtually  asserted  in  Deut.  v.  2,  3,  "  The  Lord  our  God 
made  a  covenant  with  us  in  Horeb.  The  Lord  hath  made  not 
this  covenant  with  our  fathers,  but  with  us,  even  us  who  are  all 
of  us  alive  this  day."  See  Exod.  xxiii.  20,  25;  xxix.  45,  46; 
xxxiii.  16;  Deut.iv.  7,  20,  23,  31,  34;  vii.  6—9;  x.  15;  xiv.  2; 
xxvii.  9,  10;  xxix.  9 — 13;  xxvi.  17,  18.  This  covenant  was 
renewed  at  Shechem  in  the  time  of  Joshua,  Josh.  xxiv.  22 — 25, 
and  many  years  afterwards  in  the  reign  of  Joash,  2  Kings 
xi.  17;  2  Chron.  xxiii.  16;  and  again  in  the  reign  of  Josiah. 
2  Kings  xxiii.  2,  3;  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  30,  31;  Jer.  xi.  1 — 10. 
It  was  renewed  in  the  days  of  Asa,  2  Chron.  xv.  12,  and  again 
in  the. days  of  Nehemiah,  ISTeh.  xi.  and  x.,  and  this  renewal  is 
one  of  the  last  events  recorded  by  inspiration  in  the  public 
history  of  that  people.     Strictly,  therefore,  it  was  not  only  a 


THE  PARABLE  OF  THE  VINEYARD.  261 

national,  but  a  continuing  covenant — running  with  the  race  of 
Israel  and  embracing  that  people  in  all  their  generations.  The 
mission  of  John  the  Baptist  presupposed  that  the  covenant  with 
the  nation  still  subsisted,  and  his  baptism  and  preaching  repent- 
ance assumed  that  the  national  repentance  and  faith  and  hearty 
compliance  with  the  covenant  on  the  part  of  the  whole  people, 
should  secure  to  that  generation  the  covenanted  blessings,  not- 
withstanding the  sins  of  their  forefathers.  Nay  more,  the  Lord 
assured  them,  that  it  was  because  they  not  only  yielded  no 
fruits,  but,  in  the  words  of  the  parable,  were  about  to  kill  the 
son  and  heir,  that  the  kingdom  would  be  taken  from  them. 

The  covenant  then  was  a  subsisting  one,  and  the  parable 
teaches  us,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the  nation  had  continually 
broken  it  in  all  their  generations,  and  on  the  other,  that  God 
had  forborne  with  them,  and  as  it  were  held  himself  bound  by 
his  promises  until  that  time,  though  he  might  justly  have  cast 
the  whole  nation  off,  generations  before,  as  he  did  ten  of  their 
tribes,  and  would  have  done  so  with  the  rest  had  it  not  been  for 
his  covenant  with  David.  Jer.  xxxiii.  17;  1  Kings  viii.  25; 
2  Chron.  vi.  16.  But  now  the  time  had  come  when  he  would 
forbear  no  lorfger.  The  covenant  with  David  he  had  fulfilled 
so  far  as  to  raise  up  the  Messiah  from  his  seed,  and  send  him 
to  the  nation.  He  was  the  Son  mentioned  in  the  parable. 
By  rejecting  him  and  putting  him  to  death,  that  generation 
filled  up  the  measure  of  Divine  forbearance  to  their  nation, 
Matt,  xxiii.  32,  and  the  covenanted  kingdom  was  declared  to 
be  forfeited. 

By  the  kingdom  of  God,  our  Lord  alludes  especially,  as  we 
suppose,  to  the  words  in  Exod.  xix.  6.  "Ye  shall  be  unto  me 
a  kingdom  of  priests."  However  this  may  be,  we  cannot  be 
mistaken  in  supposing  that  the  kingdom  of  God  had  been 
committed  to  that  people  in  some  especial  sense,  Rom.  ix.  4,  5, 
or  at  least  that  the  nation  stood  in  some  peculiar  relation  to  it; 
as  the  husbandmen  did  to  the  vineyard.  If  it  were  not  so,  we 
see  not  how  the  kingdom  of  God  could  have  been  taken  from 
them,  and  given  to  another  nation.  That  the  kingdom  of  God 
was  not  theirs  by  right  of  ownership,  is  too  plain  to  be 
argued.  The  nature  of  the  promise  forbids  us  to  suppose 
any  other  privilege  than  that  of  eminent  service,  and  the 
exalted  glory  and  happiness  connected  with  such  service.  We 
infer  this  from  the  words  last  quoted  from  Exod.  xix.  6.  "  Ye 
shall  be  unto  me  a  kingdom  of  priests," — a  promise  which 
reminds  us  of  Rev.  i.  6 ;  v.  10 ;  xx.  6;  1  Pet.  ii.  9;  passages 
which  we  may  regard  as  expository  of  the  words  of  this 
covenant.  Adopting  this  as  the  meaning,  God's  covenant  with 
the  people  was,  that  he  would  make  it  the  honoured  instrument 


262  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

in  his  hand  of  bringing  back  to  the  world  his  kingdom,  which 
it  should  be  their  privilege  first  to  enter,  and  then,  under  the 
Messiah,  to  administer.  See  Dan.  vii.  27.  Hence  the  kingdom 
was  first  preached  to  them.  Matt.  iii.  2 ;  iv.  17,  and  not  until 
it  waF  rej?cted,  could  it  be  taken  from  them  and  given  to  others, 
Matt.  X.  6 ;  xv.  24 ;  Rom.  xv.  8,  27. 

But  observe,  the  Lord  does  not  say  the  kingdom  shall  be 
taken  from  them  and  given  {k&vtac)  to  the  Cientiles  or  to  all 
nations,  but  (iduei)  to  a  nation — another  nation,  not  named  on 
this  occasion,  or  in  any  way  designated.  The  minds  of  the 
bystanders  would  naturally  be  directed  by  this  language  to  some 
other  contemporary  nation,  to  be  elected  or  chosen  as  Israel 
had  been.  Or  some  of  them,  remembering  what  God  had  said 
to  Moses,  Numb.  xiv.  12;  Deut.  ix.  14,  might  have  supposed 
him  to  mean,  that  God  would  choose  some  individual,  as  he 
chose  Abraham  and  Jacob,  and  raise  up  from  him  a  nation  to 
whom  he  would  transfer  the  kingdom.  Either  supposition 
would  not  be  an  unnatural  inference  from  this  expression; 
and  a  nation  so  chosen,  or  raised  up,  would  be  an  elect 
people,  in  the  same  sense  that  Israel  was.  Our  Lord,  however, 
tacitly  alluded  to  a  nation,  to  be  elected  and  gathered  out  of 
all  nations,  during  a  long  succession  of  generations,  according 
to  the  foreknowledge  of  God,  and  prepared  for  it  through 
sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  1  Pet.  i.  2,  into  which  all  those  who 
had  been  given  to  him  by  the  Father  in  the  covenant  of 
redemption  should  enter,  and  no  others — in  one  word,  his 
Church.  The  idea  he  does  not  develope.  It  was  the  fiict  only 
of  the  substitution  of  another  nation  in  the  place  of  Israel, 
which  he  now  declares.  In  his  intercessory  prayer,  the  elect 
people,  intended  in  this  place  under  the  idea  or  description  of 
a  nation,  are  much  more  distinctly  referred  to. 

But  what  we  desire  the  reader  particularly  to  notice  is,  that 
the  original  plan  of  committing  the  kingdom,  in  the  sense 
explained,  to  one  nation,  chosen  out  of  all  the  nations,  is  not 
abandoned  in  consequence  of  the  unfaithfulness  of  the  nation 
first  chosen.  That  is  not  the  method  of  the  Divine  adminis- 
tration. Of  the  march  of  Divine  Providence  it  may  truly  be 
said,  Nulla  vestigia  retrorsu?n.  The  owner  of  the  vineyard  did 
not  resolve  to  destroy  it  or  abandon  it,  or  throw  it  open  to  the 
first  occupant  in  consequence  of  the  bad  faith  and  wickedness 
of  the  first  tenants.  His  plan  he  persists  in.  The  only  change 
he  makes  is  in  the  persons  he  employs  to  execute  his  original 
design.  So  in  the  interpretation  of  the  parable.  The  only 
change  to  be  made,  is  the  substitution  of  one  nation,  repre- 
sented by  a  company  of  tenants,  for  another,  though  raised 
up  and  constituted  by  a  difierent  method.    The  first  was  elected 


THE   PARABLE   OF   THE   VINEYARD.  263 

as  a  race  according  to  the  flesh — the  second  are  begotten  of 
God,  by  the  Spirit.  John  i.  13;  James  i.  18.  The  first 
appeared  visibly  on  earth  from  the  time  they  were  first  chosen 
as  an  organized  people,  and  continued  visible  through  many 
generations.  The  second  has  ever  been,  and  still  is,  without  a 
local  habitation  or  a  name  among  the  nations.  The  greater 
portion  of  it  has  passed  the  gates  of  death.  Some  are  passing 
now,  and  some,  perhaps  many,  are  yet  to  come  into  being. 
Those  composing  the  fragment  of  it  now  on  eai-th,  comparatively 
but  a  small  number,  are  scattered  as  wheat  growing  among 
tares,  with  no  marks  of  distinction  but  the  fruits  of  the  king- 
dom they  bear.  Nor  are  they  to  be  gathered  during  the 
present  order  of  things,  and  visibly  appear  as  one  body.  The 
gates  of  Hades  which  conceal  them  must  first  be  unbarred, 
Matt.  xvi.  18,  and  the  Lord  himself  appear  in  his  glory  to 
establish  his  kingdom,  and  judge  the  nations,*  before  their 
number  can  be  consummated,  and  they  can  appear.  Matt, 
xvi.  18. 

Those  who  understand  by  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  present 
dispensation  of  the  Gospel  among  all  nations,  conclude,  con- 
sistently enough  with  their  theory,  that  the  promises  first  made 
exclusively  to  Israel,  are  to  be  bestowed  upon  all  nations,  with- 
out discrimination,  but  in  doing  so  they  disregard  the  obvious 
import  of  the  words  of  the  Saviour;  for  admitting  that  in 
consequence  of  the  fall  of  Israel,  the  kingdom  of  God  is  to  be 
preached  to  all  nations  and  to  every  creature.  Matt,  xxviii. 
19,  20;  Mark  xvi.  15,  yet  it  follows  not  that  all  will  receive  it; 
on  the  contrary,  our  Lord  teaches  with  express  reference  to 
this  dispensation,  that  although  the  many  are  called,  few  only 
are  chosen,  Matt.  xvii.  14,  and  the  chosen  ones  only  enter  into 
that  elect  nation,  upon  which  the  kingdom  promised  to  Israel 
will  be  conferred. 

It  is  plain,  also,  that  if  those  specific  blessings,  which  were 
conditionally  promised  to  Israel  at  Horeb — the  same  that  the 
Saviour  solemnly  declared  should  be  taken  from  them,  and 
given  to  another  nation — are  to  be  conferred  on  all  nations 
indiscriminately,  or  upon  all  nations  considered  as  one  nation, 
at  any  time  during  the  progress  of  the  present  dispensation, 
then  the  Divine  purpose  is,  to  make  all  nations  a  peculiar 
people  unto  him,  above  all  people,  and  a  kingdom  of  priests ;  a 
supposition  which  is  repugnant  to  the  words  of  the  promise,  as 
well  as  the  words  of  the  Saviour.  But  this  argument  we  shall 
more  fully  consider  hereafter. 

*  That  this  elect  people,  though  now  invisible,  and  even  without  a  local 
habitation  or  a  name  on  earth,  may  yet  be  called  a  nation,  (iflroc)  is  proved  by 
1  Pet.  ii.  9.     See  notes  on  Acts  ii.  47. 


264  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTUKE. 

Matt.  xxi.  44.  "  And  whosoever  shall  fall  on  this  stone, 
shall  be  broken,  [^cruudXaod^aezac,  dashed  into  pieces]  but  on 
whomsoever  it  shall  fall,  it  shall  grind  him  to  powder," 
[^?.cx/u7^(7£i,  make  chaff  of  him,  and  scatter  him  to  the  winds. 
See  Robinson's  Lex.  New  Test.  Comp.  Dan.  ii.  44  in  LXX.] 
Luke  XX.  18. 

The  stone  is  frequently  employed  as  an  emblem  of  Christ. 
It  is  so  employed  in  this  verse,  and  in  Ps.  cxviii.  22,  23, 
quoted  in  the  42d  verse.  In  Gen.  xlix.  24,  Christ  is  called 
"The  Shepherd,  the  Stone  of  Israel."  In  Zech.  iv.  7,  he  is 
called  the  Head  Stone.  Isaiah,  viii.  13,  14,  15,  foreseeing  his 
rejection  by  Israel,  calls  him  a  stone  of  stumbling  and  rock  of 
offence,  (see  1  Pet.  ii.  6 — 8;  Rom.  ix.  33;  Acts  iv.  11;  Eph. 
ii.  20 ;  and  Daniel,  ii.  34,  45,)  evidently  refers  to  the  Messiah 
under  the  emblem  of  a  stone  cut  out  of  the  mountain  without 
hands.  The  verse  we  are  considering  comprises  the  totality  of 
the  present  dispensation  of  the  Gospel.  In  the  first  clause  of 
it,  our  Lord  refers,  as  we  doubt  not,  to  Isaiah  viii.  14,  15, 
which  was  eminently  fulfilled  in  the  fall  of  Israel,  and  the 
breaking  up  and  continued  dispersion  of  the  nation  by  the 
Romans.  Regarded  as  a  prophecy,  it  denotes  the  events  more 
plainly  described  in  the  next  parable,  under  the  imagery  of  a 
captured  and  burned  city.  Matt.  xxii.  7.  The  prediction  has 
also  been  fulfilled  in  the  uninterrupted  calamities  the  Jews 
have  suffered  in  all  their  generations  since  that  event,  in  con- 
sequence of  their  hitherto  abiding  blindness  and  unbelief. 
Luke  xxi.  22 — 24.  Thus  understood,  how  fearfully  significant 
is  this  prediction! 

In  the  last  clause  of  this  verse,  our  Lord  refers,  as  we  sup- 
pose, to  the  prophecy  of  Daniel,  ii.  31 — 45,  and  especially  to 
verses  34  and  45.  He  points  us  to  the  end  of  the  times  of  the 
Gentiles,  Luke  xxi.  24,  and  those  terrible  judgments  which  are 
to  precede  the  restoration  of  Israel,  and  the  dispensation  of  the 
restitution  of  all  things.* 

These  judgments,  we  are  taught,  will  fall  in  their  intensity 
upon  the  nations  symbolized  by  the  image,  Dan.  ii.  31 — 38,  or, 
as  Paul  teaches,  2  Thess.  i.  8,  9,  upon  those  in  Christian  lands, 
who  are  living  in  heathen  ignorance  of  God,  notwithstanding 
the  Gospel  has  been  fully  preached  among  them. 

The  fourth  kingdom  represented  in  the  image,  Dan.  ii.  40, 
is,  by  the  almost  universal  consent  of  interpreters,  understood 
to  be  the  Roman  Empire,  as  it  ex-isted  at  the  commencement  of 
our  era.    Its  bounds,  as  then  established,  comprise  Christendom 

*  Compare  this  clause  with  Dan.  ii.  45,  in  the  Greek:  Ka/  *  ^aaiKux  aLtou 


THE    PARABLE   OF   THE   VINEYARD.  265 

in  its  largest  extent  in  any  age.  Hence,  we  understand  the 
apostle  and  the  prophet  as  referring  to  the  same  judgments. 
But  what  we  would  especially  remark  is,  the  discriminative 
justice  of  the  Divine  administration,  and  the  difference  which 
these  words  of  the  Saviour  put  between  the  breakers  of  the 
law,  and  those  who  abuse  the  grace  of  the  Gospeh  Severe  as 
were  the  judgments  which  came  upon  Israel,  they  were  not 
utterly  destructive.  Though  the  nation,  by  falling  on  this 
stone,  was  broken,  and  scattered  to  the  four  winds  of  heaven  ; 
and  although  the  days  of  vengeance  have  come  upon  that 
people,  in  which  all  things  written  by  Moses,  Deut.  xxviii. 
15 — 68,  and  the  prophets,  shall  be  fulfilled,  Luke  xxi.  22,  yet 
they  have  been,  and  are  still  preserved,  as  a  race  of  men ;  and 
when  these  days  shall  be  ended,  they  shall  be  restored,  Deut. 
XXX.  1 — 6,  to  their  land  and  the  Divine  favour,  and  a  new 
covenant  shall  be  made  with  them,  different  from  the  covenant 
made  with  their  fathers,  Heb.  viii.  8 — 13;  Jer.  xxxi.  31 — 34, 
■while  a  full  end  shall  be  made  of  all  the  nations  upon  which 
the  stone  shall  fall.  Jer.  xlvi.  27,  28 ;  Dan.  ii.  35,  45.  See 
vii.  11;  see  Heb.  x.  28,  29. 

Matt.  xxi.  45.  "And  the  chief-priests  and  Pharisees  hear- 
ing his  parables,  knew  that  he  spake  of  them." 

With  design  the  Evangelist  throws  in  this  observation  at  this 
place,  and  not  at  the  conclusion  of  the  parable  of  the  marriage, 
which  he  proceeds  immediately  to  record.  The  parable  of 
the  two  sons,  our  Lord  pointedly  applied  to  the  chief-priests 
and  elders  of  the  people ;  including,  no  doubt,  all  who  con- 
curred with  them  in  their  principles  and  conduct.  The  parable 
of  the  householder,  and  the  vineyard,  also,  had  an  especial 
reference  to  the  ruling  classes,  including  those  who  exercised 
offices  of  instruction ;  although  the  people,  generally,  partook 
deeply  of  the  national  sins.  The  whole  nation  were,  in  the 
general  sense  of  the  parable,  "husbandmen  and  builders,"  for 
it  was  with  the  people  as  well  as  the  rulers,  the  covenant, 
Exod.  xix.  5,  6,  8,  was  made.  Yet,  the  priests,  teachers,  and 
rulers,  to  whom  the  power  of  government  and  instruction  had 
been  committed,  were,  in  a  special  sense,  the  husbandmen  and 
builders ;  and  by  reason  of  their  authority  and  controlling 
influence,  chiefly  responsible  for  the  sin  and  unbelief  of  the 
nation.  Matt,  xxiii.  13.  In  this  sense,  the  chief-priests  and 
Pharisees  understood  the  Saviour,  and  rightly,  as  we  infer  from 
this  passage.  The  parable  of  the  marriage,  in  the  next 
chapter,  on  the  other  hand,  as  has  been  already  said,  was 
designed  to  apply  to  all  classes,  without  distinction;  not  to  the 
influential  or  governing  classes  in  particular,  and  this  remark 
34 


266  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

of  the  Evangelist  discriminates  between  them  in  their  appli- 
cation. 

Matt.  xxir.     The  parable  of  the  marriage. 

This  is  the  last  of  our  Lord's  public  parables.  It  was  pro- 
nounced, as  the  last  two  mentioned  were,  in  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem,  just  before  his  final  departure  from  it.  It  is  an 
allegory  consisting  of  two  parts ;  the  first  part  ending  at  (verse  7) 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans,  a.  d.  70,  and  the 
second,  stretching  forward  through  the  whole  of  the  present 
dispensation  of  the  gospel  among  the  Gentiles,  down  to  the 
second  coming  of  the  Lord,  and  the  gathering  of  his  elect  people 
to  himself.  It  is  a  similitude  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but 
altogether  different  in  its  design  from  those  recorded  in  the 
thirteenth  chapter  of  this  Gospel.  The  action  of  the  parable 
commences  at  the  earliest  with  the  preaching  of  John  the 
Baptist.  By  the  marriage  festival  we  understand  the  peculiar 
blessings  included  in  the  covenant  Jehovah  made  with  Israel  at 
Horeb.     See  notes  on  the  last  parable. 

By  the  invitation  to  the  marriage,  we  understand  the  call 
made  by  John,  and  our  Lord  and  his  apostles,  upon  the  nation 
to  perform  the  conditions  of  that  covenant  by  receiving  the 
kingdom  and  its  King  with  the  obedience  of  faith.  The  first 
invited  guests  were  all  those  whom  John  was  sent  to  baptize — 
the  whole  nation,  without  distinction  or  exception.  The 
servants  first  sent  forth  (verse  3)  had  executed  their  commission, 
when  John  was  put  to  death.  Matt.  xiv.  1 — 13.  See  notes  on 
that  passage.  The  other  servants  (verse  4)  had  executed  their 
commission  when  Jerusalem,  on  the  eve  of  its  overthrow,  was 
encompassed  by  the  Roman  armies,  A.  D.  70.  The  8th  verse 
is  a  formal  repudiation  of  Israel,  as  the  elect  people  under  the 
covenant  of  law,  Hos.  i.  9,  which  became  irrevocable  and 
complete  when  the  temple  was  destroyed,  and  the  people 
dispersed  among  all  nations  by  the  sword  of  the  Romans.  Luke 
xxi.  24.  The  theocracy  was  then  entirely  withdrawn,  and  Jew 
and  Gentile  were  placed  absolutely  on  the  same  level,  in  respect 
to  the  Divine  proceedings  shadowed  forth  in  the  9th  and  10th 
verses  of  the  parable.  See  the  notes  on  Acts  iii.  19 — 21.  For 
after  those  events,  that  people  could  be  found  only  on  "the 
highways  and  hedges,"  Luke  xiv.  23,  and  if  brought  to  the 
marriage  at  all,  must  be  brought  from  thence,  with  such 
others  as  were  found  willing  to  obey  the  command  of  the 
King's  servants. 

Consider  again  the  brevity  with  which  the  greatest  events 
the  world  has  witnessed  are  represented.  The  whole  history  of 
the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  from  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  hangs 
on  these  two  verses,  9th  and  10th.      To  mention  only  a  few  of 


THE    PARABLE    OF   THE   MARRIAGE.  267 

tliem : — (1)  The  persecutions  under  Domitian,  A.  D.  94;*  under 
Trajan,  a.  d.  155;  Antonine,  A.  D.  164;  Septimius  Severus, 
A.  D.  205;  Maximin,  A.  D.  235;  Decius,  a.  d.  251;  Valerian, 
A.  D.  255;  Aurelian,  a.  d.  270;  and  Diocletian,  a.  d.  303. 
Next,  (2)  the  establishment  of  Christianity  bj  Constantine, 
A.  D.  323,  as  the  religion  of  the  Roman  Empire.  (3)  The  rise 
of  the  Papacy,  and  its  progress  to  unbounded  power.  (4)  The 
corruption  of  Christian  doctrine  by  Arians  and  other  heretics ; 
by  Popes  and  councils.  (5)  The  Reformation  from  Popery ; 
the  rise  and  progress  of  the  Protestant  churches ;  and  (6)  the 
more  recent  Christian  missions  to  Pagan  countries;  and  the 
translating,  printing,  and  distributing  of  the  Bible  among  all 
nations.  All  these,  and  many  more  particulars,  are  not 
brought  into  view  by  the  parable.  Nor  does  it  notice,  in 
any  form,  the  actings  of  those  who  have  gone  forth  as  servants 
of  the  king,  without  being  sent  by  him.  For  these  we  must 
turn  to  another  parable.  Matt.  xiii.  25.  This  parable  has 
respect  only  to  the  true  servants  of  the  king,  and  their 
accomplished  work,  without  any  allusion  to  the  impediments 
they  were  to  meet  with,  or  the  persecutions  they  were  to  suffer 
in  performing  it 

In  harmony  with  this  characteristic  of  the  parable,  is  the 
time  of  its  action.  It  is  brief,  yet  undefined,  in  respect  of  its 
duration.  The  imagery  is  taken  from  the  economy  of  human 
life,  and  considered  as  an  actual  occurrence,  the  whole  repre- 
sentation would  be  reasonably  circumscribed  within  a  single 
day,  or  even  an  hour,  according  to  the  diligence  and  success  of 
the  king's  servants.  During  a  brief  interval  only,  the  enter- 
tainment already  prepared  and  ready  to  be  served  up,  can  be 
supposed  to  wait.  As  soon  as  the  servants  have  executed  the 
king's  command,  he  appears.  The  representation  of  the  parable, 
in  this  respect,  is  in  harmony  with  the  doctrine  of  the  uncer- 
tainty of  the  time  of  our  Lord's  coming.  Mark.  xiii.  32; 
Matt.  xxiv.  36.  It  depends,  if  we  may  so  say,  upon  the  full 
execution  of  the  commission  which  the  Lord  gave  the  apostles, 
and  through  them  to  all  his  servants  and  followers.  Matt. 
xxviii.  19;  Mark  xvi.  15;  ^J.att.  xxiv.  14.  When  that  elect 
people  who,  in  the  Divine  purpose,  have  been  substituted  in  the 
place  of  Israel,  shall  be  fully  gathered,  then  the  Lord  will 
appear  in  the  midst  of  them  and  celebrate  that  marriage  festival 
which  this  parable  represents.    See  Rev.  xix.  9. 

Commentators  have  noticed  the  likeness  between  this  parable 

*  That  under  Nero,  a.  d.  66,  occurred  while  Jerusalem  was  standing,  and 
during  the  period  which  we  have  allotted  to  the  second  mission  of  the  servants, 
verse  4. 


268  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

and  that  of  the  Great  Supper.  Luke  xiv.  15 — 24.  That  parable 
is,  in  truth,  a  similitude  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  although  it 
was  not  put  forth  as  such.  It  shows  the  manner  in  which  the 
Jewish  nation,  and  the  Jews  individually,  refused  the  kingdom 
when  it  was  preached  to  them  by  John  and  our  Lord,  verses 
16 — 20.  It  shadows  forth,  also,  the  present  dispensation  of 
the  Gospel  among  the  Gentiles,  verses  21 — 24.  But  the  para- 
ble under  consideration,  so  far  as  it  respects  the  Jews  as  the 
elect  people,  is  more  specific.  It  was  pronounced  as  a  simili- 
tude of  the  kingdom  which  had  been  preached  to  them  exclu- 
sively ;  and,  consequently,  they  only  were  represented  by  the 
first  invited  guests.  And  when  our  Lord  comes  to  speak  of 
the  judgments  which  their  national  and  individual  sins  were 
about  to  bring  upon  them,  he  almost  drops  the  drapery  of  the 
parable,  that  he  might  show  them  not  only  the  nature  of  these 
judgments,  but  the  form  in  which  they  would  come,  verse  T. 
Their  city  should  be  burned,  and  they  themselves  should  be 
destroyed  by  the  armies  which  their  King,  whom  they  had  dis- 
honoured and  contemned,  would  send  upon  them.  It  is  to  be 
noticed,  also,  that  in  the  parable  of  the  Great  Supper,  our 
Lord  does  not  represent  the  occasion  upon  which  it  was  made, 
nor  does  he  denote  the  character  or  rank  of  the  person  who 
made  it;  nor  does  it  appear  that  any  particular  relation  sub- 
sisted between  him  and  the  guests  he  invited.  It  was  addressed 
to  an  individual,  at  a  private  entertainment,  in  reply  to  an 
observation  which  implied  a  too  confident  expectation  of  enjoy- 
ing the  blessings  of  the  kingdom.  This  parable,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  founded  upon  the  relation  between  a  king  and  his  sub- 
jects. The  occasion  was  an  extraordinary  one,  intimately 
connected  with  the  honour  of  the  king,  and  of  the  heir  of  his 
throne.  The  dishonour  done  him  by  his  subjects  was  a  breach 
of  their  allegiance  for  which  they  deserved,  and  received,  severe 
punishment.  As  before  suggested,  it  is  the  complement  of  the 
two  preceding  parables,  and  was  added  to  show  the  grounds  of 
the  Divine  judgments  as  they  affected  all  classes  of  the  people, 
without  discrimination  between  the  rulers  and  the  ruled.  Thus 
much  upon  the  scope  and  general  import  of  this  parable.  We 
now  proceed  to  submit  a  few  observations  on  some  of  the 
particulars. 

Matt.  XXII.  2.  "The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto  a 
certain  king  which  made  a  marriage  for  his  son." 

As  the  marriage  was  not  celebrated  at  the  time  first  appointed, 
on  account  of  the  unworthy  behaviour  of  the  invited  guests,  but 
deferred  for  a  little  space,  until  other  guests  could  be  invited 
and  assembled:  so  the  kingdom  of  heaven  would  not  be  esta- 
blished at  its  first  announcement,  on  account  of  the  unworthiness 


THE   PARABLE   OF   THE    MARRIAGE.  269 

of  the  Jews,  to  whom  it  was  promised  and  preached,  but  would 
be  deferred  until  another  people  could  be  called  and  substituted 
in  their  place. 

Matt.  xxii.  3.  "And  sent  forth  his  servants  to  call  them 
that  were  [had  been]  bidden  to  the  wedding,  and  they  would 
not  come." 

The  action  of  the  parable  commences,  as  before  suggested, 
with  the  mission  and  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist.  Previously 
to  John,  the  prophets  had  preached  the  kingdom  of  God  as 
future.  Matt.  xi.  13;  Luke  xvi.  16.  John  first  announced  it 
as  nigh,  and  ready  to  be  established.  Matt.  iii.  2 ;  Mark  i.  15. 
This  act  of  the  parable,  the  first  mission  of  the  king's  servants, 
extends,  as  has  been  said,  to  the  death  of  John.  Matt.  xiv.  10. 
It  includes  the  first  mission  of  the  twelve  apostles.  Matt,  x., 
who,  as  we  have  seen,  returned  from  it  at  the  death  of  John. 
Mai'k  vi.  30;  see  notes  on  Matt.  xiv.  10.  During  this  period 
the  call  was  made  upon  the  nation  as  such ;  but  this  included 
an  individual  or  personal  call  on  every  Jew  to  whom  the  king- 
dom was  preached,  just  as  the  baptism  of  John,  which  was 
appointed  for  the  nation,  see  notes  on  Matt.  iii.  6;  and  1  Cor. 
X.  2,  was  individual  or  personal  in  its  administration.  In  this 
latter  sense  chiefly  we  understand  the  call  intended  in  the 
parable.  See  John  i.  11,  12.  But  "they  [the  people]  would 
not  come." 

During  this  period  none  of  the  preachers  of  the  kingdom 
suffered  death  at  the  hands  of  the  people.  John  was  put  to 
death  by  Herod  at  the  instigation  of  Herodias,  through  motives 
of  private  revenge,  several  months  after  his  public  ministry  was 
ended.  See  notes  on  Luke  iii.  20,  21.  The  sin  of  the  people 
in  respect  to  John's  ministry  consisted  chiefly  in  their  not 
receiving  him  with  the  obedience  of  faith. 

Matt.  xxii.  4.  "Again  he  sent  forth  other  servants,  say- 
ing :  Tell  them  which  are  bidden :  Behold,  I  have  prepared  my 
dinner;  my  oxen  and  my  fallings  are  killed,  and  all  things  are 
ready:  come  to  the  marriage." 

Interpreting  this  parable  in  accordance  with  the  distinctions 
taken  in  preceding  notes,  (see  notes  on  Matt.  xiv.  10;  xv.  30; 
xviii.  11,  foot-note,)  the  second  mission  of  the  servants,  which 
may  be  called  the  second  act  of  the  parable,  commenced  at  the 
death  of  John  and  ended  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem ;  con- 
sequently it  includes  the  latter  portion  of  our  Lord's  public 
ministry,  the  mission  of  the  seventy  disciples,  Luke  x.,  and  the 
"whole  ministry  of  all  the  apostles,  except  the  apostle  John, 
under  their  second  commission.  AVhile  our  Lord  remained  with 
them,  none  of  them  suffered  death  or  violence.  John  xvii.  12 ; 
xviii.  8,  9.     After  his  death  persecutions  arose.     Stephen  was 


270  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

Stoned,  Acts  vii.  59 ;  viii.  1 ;  Herod  vexed  some  of  the  Church 
and  killed  James.  Acts  xii.  1,  2.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
and  the  Epistles  of  Paul  contain  abundant  evidence  that  perse- 
cutions of  the  apostles  and  their  disciples,  by  the  Jews,  were 
rife  and  unrelenting,  which  Paul  alleges  as  a  reason  why  the 
wrath  of  God  was  about  to  break  forth  against  that  people,  and 
abide  upon  them  [ec^  zeXoc;)  until  the  end,  i.  e.  auovo^.  1  Thess. 
ii.  14 — 16.  Their  cruel  treatment  of  the  servants  of  "the  king" 
was  the  filling  up  of  their  sins,  and  provoked  him  to  destroy 
them  and  their  city. 

Matt.  xxii.  5.  "  But  [aiizXr^aavre^,  neglecting  or  paying  no 
attention  to  the  call]  they  made  light  of  it,  and  went  their  ways, 
one  to  his  farm,  and  another  to  his  merchandise." 

Of  those  called  or  invited,  there  were  two  classes.  The  one 
merely  made  light  of,  or  neglected  the  invitation,  preferring 
their  ordinary  avocations  to  the  honour  their  king  proffered 
them.  This  was  probably  a  numerous  and  perhaps  much  the 
largest  class.  To  such  the  apostle  seems  to  allude  iu  Heb. 
ii.  3.* 

Matt.  xxii.  6.  "And  the  remnant"  \ol  oe  Xocr.oc^  but  the 
rest,  namely  those  who  did  not  merely  neglect  the  call]  "  took 
his  servants,  and  entreated  them  spitefully,  and  slew  them." 

The  representation  in  this  verse  compels  us  to  extend  this 
second  mission  of  the  servants  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
Historical  facts  would  not  justify  the  representation  if  this 
second  mission  terminated  before  our  Lord's  ascension;  for 
none  of  the  king's  servants  were  slain  until  after  that  event. 
Besides  it  has  been  shown,  see  notes  on  Acts  iii.  19 — 21,  that 
while  the  temple  stood,  and  the  worship  of  it  was  permitted, 
and  the  rites  of  their  law  allowed  to  Jewish  converts  by  the 
apostles,  the  Jews  had  not  entirely  lost  their  prerogative.  See 
Acts  xiii.  46.  Peter  addressed  them  as  still  "  the  children  of 
the  prophets  and  of  the  covenant  God  made  with  their  fathers," 
Acts  iii.  25,  and  see  Rom.  ix.  1 — 5,  and  promised  them,  even 
then,  the  second  mission  of  Jesus  Christ  upon  the  condition  of 
their  national  repentance   and  faith.      This  interpretation  is 

*  Ila>;  yiiu.ii(  fK:*>iu^o/us^oi  thkumth;  iy.iKmTAV'rK  <r»T»/M:tc.  How  shall  we  escape  if 
yjQ  neglect  a.  s&XwutiQn  so  great  ?  The  word  (trarnf/a)  salvation  is  employed  in 
Scripture  to  convey  many  different  degrees  of  meaning.  See  the  use  of  the 
word  in  Acts  xxvii.  20,  34;  Heb.  xi.  7;  Matt.  ix.  21,  22;  Mark  v.  23,  28,  84; 
vi.  56;  X.  52;  Luke  viii.  36,  48,  50;  xvii.  19;  John  xi.  12;  Acts  iv.  9;  xiv.  9; 
Romans  xi.  26;  Rev.  xxi.  24.  Hence  Paul  adds  to  it  the  qualifying  word 
(T«x/xat/T»?)  so  great.  He  means  by  salvation  not  merely  release  from  condem- 
nation, but  salvation  with  glorification  and  exaltation  to  the  rank  and  condition 
of  kings  and  priests  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  was  at  first  offered  to 
the  Israelites  exclusively,  but  being  rejected  by  them,  will  be  conferred  upon 
that  elect  people  which  this  dispensation  was  appointed  to  substitute  in  their 
place. 


THE  PARABLE    OF   THE    MARRIAGE.  271 

enforced  by  the  fact  already  mentioned,  that  the  parable  seems 
to  extend  this  mission  of  the  servants  to  that  event,  verses  6 
and  7. 

Matt.  xxii.  8.  "  Then  said  he  to  his  servants :  The  wed- 
ding indeed  is  ready,  but  they  that  were  bidden  were  not 
worthy." 

This  is  a  sentence  of  repudiation,  or  the  formal  exclusion  of 
Israel  as  the  elect  nation  from  the  high  glories  of  the  cove- 
nanted kingdom.  Trial  had  been  made  of  them  under  the 
covenant  of  law,  before  the  Holy  Spirit  was  given.  Trial  had 
been  made  of  them  again  under  the  covenant  of  grace,  after  the 
Spirit  was  given.  For  a  time  the  Gospel  was  preached  to  them 
exclusively.  Acts  xi.  19 ;  see  Gal.  ii.  7.  The  epistles  of  Paul, 
and  Peter,  and  James,  falling  as  they  do  within  this  period, 
show  how  abundantly  the  apostles  laboured  in  their  behalf. 
They  were  tried  nearly  forty  years — a  whole  generation — as 
faithfully  as  the  Gentiles  were,  but  with  less  effect,  though  they 
had  the  advantage  of  greater  light  and  knowledge.  But  all  in 
vain.  By  their  neglect  and  contempt  of  the  Gospel,  and  their 
persecutions  of  the  "servants  of  the  king,"  they  proved  them- 
selves unworthy,  and  they  were  cast  off. 

Matt.  xxii.  9.  "Go  ye,  therefore,  into  the  highways,  and 
as  many  as  ye  shall  find,  bid  to  the  marriage." 

This  may  be  called  the  third  great  action  of  the  parable.  It 
commenced  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  dispersion 
of  the  Jews  among  all  nations.  The  end  of  it  we  see  not  yet. 
All  the  apostles,  except  John,  were  then  dead.  The  servants 
intended,  therefore,  must  be  those  composing  the  churches 
which  had  been  organized  and  established  by  the  apostles  in 
various  parts  of  Asia,  Europe,  and  Africa,  or  their  leaders  or 
rulers.  Thus  interpreted,  the  parable  regards  them  as  mis- 
sionaries, or  missionary  bodies,  whose  chief  duty  it  was  to  exe- 
cute the  command  of  the  king.  It  is  noticeable,  also,  that  the 
command  could  not  be  applicable  personally  to  Peter  or  Paul. 
They  had  fulfilled  their  course.  Nor  even  to  John,  nor  to  any 
one  servant.  It  was  addressed  to  many;  to  all  the  king's 
servants.  The  parable  contemplates,  therefore,  no  hierarcTiy 
organized  under  one  supreme  head,  but  individual  servants, 
each  having  the  same  mission  and  charged  with  the  same  duties, 
and  accountable  only  to  the  King,  their  Master. 

If  we  interpret  this  verse  by  Matt,  xxviii.  19;  xxiv.  14; 
Mark  xvi.  15,  the  mission  of  the  servants  Avas  and  is  world- 
wide, and  its  duration,  though  not  defined,  till  the  second 
coming  of  the  Lord,  represented  in  the  parable  by  the  king's 
coming  in  to  see  the  guests.  Indeed  that  great  event  seems  to 
be  dependent  upon  the  full  execution  of  this  service^  and  con- 


272  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

sequently,  according  to  the  representation  of  the  parable,  will 
occur  sooner  or  later  according  to  the  zeal,  activity,  and  success 
of  the  servants  in  performing  it.  Thus  interpreted,  the  motive 
which  the  parable  furnishes  for  missions  with  those  who  love 
the  Lord's  appearing,  see  2  Tim.  iv.  8,  is  stronger  than  any 
other  that  can  be  imagined. 

Again,  we  observe  that  the  servants  were  commanded  to  bid 
all,  as  many  as,  and  whoever,  they  should  find,  to  the  marriage; 
that  is,  to  the  marriage  festival  which  had  been  prepared,  and 
from  which  the  first  invited  guests,  the  Jews,  had  been  rejected. 
No  change  in  the  blessings  proffered  is  intimated,  but  only  in 
the  persons  who  were  to  enjoy  them. 

Matt.  xxii.  10.  "So  those  servants  went  out  into  the  high- 
ways and  gathered  together  all,  as  many  as  they  found,  both 
bad  and  good,  and  the  wedding  was  furnished  with  guests." 

This  is  an  allegorical  representation  of  the  preaching  of  the 
Gospel,  and  of  its  results.  The  servants  gathered  together  all, 
as  many  as  they  found,  both  had  and  good.  The  representation 
is,  of  a  mixed  company;  and  in  this  respect  it  agrees  with  the 
parables  of  the  tares  of  the  field  and  of  the  net  cast  into  the 
sea.  Matt.  xiii.  30,  40,  48.  In  thus  proceeding  the  servants 
obeyed  strictly  the  command  of  the  king.  The  result  was  just 
such  as  the  king  might  have  expected  from  the  faithful  execu- 
tion of  his  orders.  Yet  he  acted  advisedly  in  giving  them, 
relying  on  himself  to  preserve  the  occasion  from  dishonour,  by 
excluding  from  the  festival  those  whom  he  found  unworthy. 

For  observe:  he  gave  his  servants  no  authority  to  admit  any 
to  the  marriage.  This  prerogative  he  reserved  to  himself, 
which  he  is  represented  as  exercising  personally,  and  not  by  a 
delegate  or  vicar. 

Matt.  xxii.  11 — 13.  "  And  when  the  king  came  in  to  see 
the  guests,  he  saw  there  a  man  which  had  not  on  a  wedding- 
garment.  And  he  saith  unto  him.  Friend,  how  earnest  thou  in 
hither,  not  having  a  wedding-garment?  And  he  was  speechless. 
Then  said  the  king  to  the  servants.  Bind  him  hand  and  foot, 
and  take  him  away,  and  cast  him  into  outer  darkness:  there 
shall  be  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth." 

This  portion  of  the  parable  refers  to  the  scene  of  the  advent, 
into  which  it  would  be  presumptuous  curiously  to  inquire.  We 
do  not  regard  it,  however,  as  identical  with  that  represented  in 
Matt.  XXV.  31 — 46.  The  design  of  these  verses  is  to  exemplify, 
in  a  general  way,  the  Lord's  dealing  with  unworthy  professors. 
The  fault  ascribed  to  the  excluded  guest,  was  a  defect  which 
must  have  been  common  to  all  the  unworthy,  however  diversified 
their  character  in  other  respects.  Hence  one  example  is  suf- 
ficient to  impart  the  instruction  the  parable  was  designed  to 


THE    PARABLE   OF   THE   MARRIAGE.  273 

convey.  But  that  more  than  one  person  would  be  thus 
excluded  seems  inferrible  from  verse  10  and  verse  14,  which  we 
now  proceed  to  consider. 

Matt.  xxii.  14.     "  For  many  are  called,  but  few  are  chosen." 

These  words  occur  at  the  conclusion  of  the  parable  of  the 
householder  and  hired  labourers.  Matt.  xx.  1 — 16,  but  the  ap- 
plication of  them  is  to  different  subjects.  If  we  may  regard 
the  labourers  in  that  parable  under  the  same  category  as  the 
servants  in  this,  the  rule  of  the  Divine  procedure  declared  in 
this  verse,  will  be  applied  to  the  servants  of  the  king,  as  well  as 
to  those  whom  they  were  sent  forth  to  call.  That  some  preached 
the  Gospel  from  unworthy  motives,  even  in  Paul's  day,  is  evi- 
dent from  Philip,  i.  15 — 18;  and  that  such  preachers  have  been 
found  in  all  ages  since,  the  history  of  the  Church  abundantly 
proves.  But  confining  our  observations  to  this  parable,  the 
principle  is  applied  to  the  gathered  results  of  the  labours  of 
the  true  and  loyal  servants  of  the  king.  Thej  called  77iani/ ; 
and  the  call  may  be  considered  as  made  wherever,  and  by  what- 
ever means,  the  light  of  the  Gospel  is  spread.  It  is  the  Divine 
purpose,  as  we  learn  from  other  passages,  that  the  world  shall 
be  fully  evangelized.  Matt.  xxiv.  14.  The  mere  light  of  the 
Gospel  is  a  grace  and  a  power,  irrespectively  of  any  special 
and  saving  effect  given  to  it  upon  the  hearts  of  men,  by  the 
Holy  Spirit.  It  dissipate  sthe  darkness  of  paganism.  It  des- 
troys heathen  idolatry  and  its  abominations.  It  greatly 
elevates  man  as  a  rational  creature.  Evangelization  is  a  Gos- 
pel term  for  civilization.  Civilization  advances  or  retrogrades 
just  in  proportion  as  the  light  of  the  Gospel  shines  brightly  or 
is  obscured.     This  worldly  men  perceive  and  acknowledge. 

But  it  is  not  in  the  power  or  nature  of  light,  or  the  mere 
knowledge  of  Divine  truth,  to  change  the  moral  nature  of  man. 
This  is  the  office  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  his  especial  work  ; 
and,  in  performing  it,  he  acts  in  accordance  with  the  sovereign 
purpose  of  election  declared  in  this  verse.  Out  of  the  many 
called,  he  chooses  whom  he  pleases,  and  by  his  almighty  power 
creates  them  anew,  in  order  that  he  may  form  them  into  a  king- 
dom of  kings  and  priests,  and  exalt  them,  as  new  creatures,  to 
thrones  of  glory. 

The  principle  thus  explicitly  declared  at  the  conclusion  of 
this  parable,  ia  identical  with  that  which  the  Saviour  assumed 
at  the  conclusion  of  the  parable  of  the  vineyard.  Matt,  xxi,  43. 
The  election  of  Israel  to  be  a  kingdom  of  kings  and  priests  unto 
God,  was  an  act  of  Divine  sovereignty.  No  wrong  was  done 
to  the  nations  which  were  then  passed  by.  And  when  Israel 
forfeited  the  condition  upon  which  the  blessings  of  the  kingdom 
were  promised,  no  wrong  would  have  been  done  had  God  chosen 
35 


274  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

to  substitute  some  contemporaneous  people  in  their  place,  and 
confer  upon  them  the  privileges  Israel  had  forfeited.  Yet  he 
chose  rather  to  open  a  dispensation  for  all  nations,  to  be  con- 
tinued until  all  of  them  should  be  called,  in  order  "that  he 
might  take  out  of  them  a  people  for  his  name."  When  that 
purpose  shall  have  been  accomplished,  he  will  return  and  build 
again  the  tabernacle  of  David  which  is  fallen  down,  and  will 
build  again  the  ruins  thereof,  and  set  it  up,  that  the  residue  of 
men  may  seek  after  the  Lord,  and  all  the  nations  upon  whom 
his  name  is  called.  Acts  xv.  14 — 17;  see  Rev.  xxi.  24,  All 
Israel  will  then  be  saved,  and  enjoy  pre-eminence  among  the 
nations  of  the  earth.  But  they  will  not  be  exalted  to  the 
glories  of  the  kingdom  promised  them  at  Horeb. 

The  doctrine  of  election,  then,  as  it  lies  imbedded  in  the  New 
Testament,  is  but  the  development  of  the  covenant  God  made 
with  Israel  at  Horeb.  The  end  or  purpose  to  be  accomplished 
in  the  administration  of  the  Divine  government  by  the  elect 
Church,  is  that  for  which  the  race  of  Israel  was  originally 
chosen.  1  Pet.  ii.  9,  comp.  with  Exod.  xix.  5,  6;  also  Rev.  i. 
6;  V.  10;  Philip,  iii.  21;  Rom.  viii.  29,  That  purpose,  we 
have  seen,  was  to  create  a  kingdom  of  priests,  who  should  sus- 
tain the  most  intimate  relations  to  the  Messiah,  John  xvii.  23, 
and  have  part  with  him  in  his  glory  and  his  throne,  John 
xvii.  22;  Rev.  iii,  21,  When,  therefore,  the  Church  shall  be 
completely  formed,  the  kingdom  which  was  taken  from  Israel 
as  a  nation,  will  be  given  to  the  elect  Church — the  body  of 
Christ,  1  Cor,  xii.  27 — and  they  will  exercise  that  rule  over 
the  nations  of  the  earth,  and  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  which 
was  promised  to  Israel  at  Horeb,  and  would  have  been  conferred 
upon  them  by  the  Lord  Jesus,  Matt,  xxiii.  37,  "  had  they  indeed 
obeyed  the  voice  of  Jehovah,  and  kept  his  covenant."  Exod. 
xix.  5;  Matt.  xxi.  43;  1  Peter  ii.  9. 


CHAPTER    VI  1. 

The  plot  against  Christ  in  regard  to  tribute. — Christ's  reply  in  respect  to 
tribute. — The  Sadducees  deny  the  Resurrection. — Christ's  answer  respecting 
the  Resurrection. — Resurrection  promised  in  the  ancient  covenants. — The 
Resurrection  promised  to  the  Patriarchs. — Christ's  answer  respecting  the 
Commandments. — Christ's  question  respecting  his  title  as  Lord. — He  silences 
those  who  questioned  liim. — Intimate  connection  of  the  several  parts  of  the 
Evangelical  record. — The  Jews  were  to  hear  the  teachers  of  the  Law. — Why 
the  teachers  of  the  Law  were  to  be  heard. — Character  of  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees. — The  ambitious  to  be  humbled,  the  lowly  exalted. 

Matthew  xxii.  15 — 46;  see  also  Mark  xii.  13 — 37;  Luke 
XX.  20 — 44,  The  parables  of  the  vineyard  and  of  the  marriage 
of  the  King's   son,  form  a  fitting  conclusion  of  our  Lord's 


THOUGHTS    ON   THE   TWO    PRECEDING    PARABLES.  275 

public  instructions  as  a  teacher,  whether  we  regard  him  as  the 
Messiah  or  Son  of  Man.  The  people  had  rejected  him  in  both 
characters,  and  nothing  belonging  to  his  public  functions 
remained  but  his  sacrificial  work.  Why,  then,  it  may  be 
inquired,  was  the  rest  of  this  chapter  added?  Are  we  to 
regard  it  as  miscellaneous  matter,  without  coherence  between 
its  parts  or  with  the  preceding  context,  and  as  having  been 
recorded  only  on  account  of  its  intrinsic  importance;  or  is 
there  a  logical  connection  between  its  different  parts  and  the 
instruction  of  the  parables  ? 

It  would  be  impossible  to  over-estimate  the  importance  of 
this  portion  of  the  chapter;  and  this  consideration  alone,  if 
there  were  no  others,  would  be  a  sufficient  reason  for  recording 
it ;  yet,  if  we  consider  it,  especially  those  parts  which  contain 
the  words  of  the  Saviour,  in  connection  with  the  preceding 
parables,  we  shall  perceive  a  continuity  of  thought  Avhich 
reveals  a  special  design,  and  may  guide  us  in  the  interpretation 
of  the  entire  passage.  This  will  appear  if  we  bear  in  mind  the 
following  particulars : 

(1.)  In  these  parables  Jesus  had  announced  to  the  people  the 
momentous  truth  that  God  would  take  away  from  them  as  a 
nation,  the  high  privileges  of  the  kingdom,  which  he  had  con- 
ditionally promised  them  at  Horeb.  ■  In  this  purpose,  it  was 
implied  that  the  Theocracy  established  over  them,  even  in  the 
lower  form  in  which  they  had  enjoyed  it,  would  be  withdrawn, 
and  their  national  state  be  destroyed. 

(2.)  That  another  nation  would  be  called  and  substituted 
under  the  covenant  in  their  place,  upon  which  the  blessings 
of  it  would  be  conferred.  Upon  this  part  of  the  Divine 
procedure,  the  Saviour,  as  we  have  remarked  already,  was  not 
explicit.  Yet  tacitly,  he  referred  to  a  people  to  be  gathered 
out  of  all  nations  by  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  during 
a  series  of  ages  or  generations.  Involved  in  this  idea  is  the 
death  and  resurrection  of  the  vast  majority  of  this  substituted 
people,  namely,  the  elect  church — the .  very  thought  implied  in 
Matt.  xvi.  18 — and  his  future  coming  as  Son  of  Man,  when  all 
his  enemies  should  be  subdued. 

These  particulars,  to  mention  no  others,  certainly  enter  into 
the  Divine  purpose  and  plan,  as  shadowed  forth  in  these  pa-rables. 
They  were,  if  we  may  so  express  it,  the  ruling  thoughts  in 
the  mind  of  the  Saviour,  and  influenced  and  even  gave  shape  to 
his  replies  to  the  Herodians  and  the  Sadducees.  In  the 
question  which  he  proposed  to  the  Pharisees,  touching  the  Son- 
ship  and  Lordship  of  Christ,  we  shall  discover  an  allusion  to 
the  denial  of  his  divine  rights  and  his  rejection  by  the  nation 
at  that  time.  Bearing  these  considerations  in  mind,  we  proceed 
with  the  exposition. 


276  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

Matt.  xxii.  15.  "Then  went  the  Pharisees  and  took  counsel 
together,  how  they  might  entangle  him  in  his  talk,"  [ensnare 
him  in  discourse.] 

The  scene  is  still  in  the  temple,  and  the  time,  the  last  day  of 
our  Lord's  public  ministry.  The  parable  of  the  two  sons,  xxi. 
28 — 32,  and  of  the  vineyard,  33 — 44,  greatly  provoked  the 
priests  and  Pharisees ;  so  much  so,  that  they  would  have  laid 
hands  on  him  ipimediately,  had  they  not  been  restrained  by 
their  fears  of  the  people,  verse  46.  At  the  conclusion  of  the 
parable  of  the  vineyard,  it  is  probable,  see  Mark  xii.  12,  they 
retired  to  some  part  of  the  temple,  to  consult  and  concert  a 
plan,  by  which  they  might  destroy  him,  without  personal 
danger;  leaving  him  alone  with  the  people,  while  he  delivered 
to  them  the  parable  of  the  marriage.  This  connection  of  the 
verse  with  the  last  verse  of  the  preceding  chapter,  is  made 
obvious  by  Luke  xx.  18,  19,  20.  The  plan  they  agreed  upon 
was  to  substitute  fraud  or  craft  for  violence,  disguising  their 
design  by  flattery. 

Of  course  it  was  indispensable  to  success  that  they  should 
not  personally  appear  in  the  matter;  for  after  the  severe 
denunciation  they  had  received,  and  perhaps  the  displeasure 
they  had  shown,  it  was  not  to  be  supposed  they  could  address 
him  so  soon,  with  words  of  commendation  and  praise,  without 
being  suspected  of  insincerity.  So  they  would  naturally  reason. 
They  selected,  therefore,  persons,  probably  of  less  note  than 
themselves ;  perhaps  not  of  their  own  body,  but  such  as 
favoured  their  principles  and  shared  in  their  malice — disciples, 
[juadyjra^)  as  Matthew  calls  them ;  trained  insidious  men, 
(iyxadsTOU!:)  as  Luke  calls  them,  xx.  12,  to  whom  they  joined 
some  Herodians;  so  called,  because  they  were  the  domestics,  or 
courtiers,  or  soldiers  of  Herod.  See  the  Syriac  version.  Having 
concerted  their  plan,  they  watched  (jcafjaTrjpy^aauTS^,  Luke  xx. 
20,)  for  an  opportunity  to  carry  it  into  effect.  It  occurred  when 
the  Lord  had  finished  his  last  parable.  Matt.  xxii.  1 — 14,  and, 
as  we  may  suppose,  as  he  was  upon  the  point  of  departing 
finally  from  the  temple.  If  this  be  a  correct  view  of  the  cir- 
cumstances, a  good  deal  that  follows  in  this  and  the  next  chap- 
ter, occurred  apparently  in  consequence  of  the  detention,  after 
the  close  of  his  public  formal  address,  with  which  his  ministry 
was  concluded ;  although  we  might  properly  add  to  the  para- 
bles the  last  three  verses  of  chapter  xxiii.,  in  which  he  apostro- 
phizes, with  inimitable  pathos,  the.doomed  city  and  her  children. 
But  these  are  conjectures  on  which  we  will  not  dwell. 

Matt.  xxii.  16.  "And  they  sent  out"  [from  their  conclave 
or  place  of  consultation]  "  unto  him  their  disciples,"  [disciples 
of  theirs]  "with  the  Herodians,  saying:  Master,  we  know  that 


THE  TKIBUTE-PLOT,  AND   CHRIST'S   REPLY.  277 

tliou  art  true,"  [a  true,  sincere,  candid  man]  "  and  teachest  the 
way  of  God  in  truth,"  [we  know  also  that  thou  art  a  fearless 
man]  "  neither  carest  thou  for  any,  for  thou  regardest  not  the 
person  of  men.  Tell  us,  therefore,  What  thinkest  thou?" 
[what  is  your  judgment  or  opinion  upon  this  question?]  "Is  it 
lawful"  [for  us  Jews,  who  are  God's  chosen  people,  owing  alle- 
giance only  to  him]  "to  give  tribute  to  Ctesar,  or  not?" 

If  the  Herodians  were  a  political  party  who  maintained  the 
affirmative  of  this  question,  as  some  conjecture,  they  were 
added  to  this  committee  of  spies,  it  is  probable,  in  order  to 
give  the  transaction  the  appearance  of  a  real  dispute,  which 
they  wished  to  have  settled  by  the  superior  wisdom  of  Jesus: 
for  the  Pharisees  maintained  the  negative  of  the  question. 
However  this  may  be,  the  character  they  ascribed  to  the  Lord 
was  strictly  just,  whether  they  believed  it  or  not,  and  in  this 
respect,  their  words,  though  prompted  by  deceit,  were  not 
flattery. 

The  question  also  was  artfully  conceived:  For  if  our  Lord 
had  answered  it,  Zes,  the  answer  would  have  tended  to  impair 
his  popularity  with  the  people ;  and  this  it  was  which  mad- 
dened the  Pharisees  so  much  against  him.  Had  he  answered 
iVb,  they  would  have  accused  him  to  the  governor  of  sedition. 
It  is  probable  they  expected  the  negative  answer,  supposing, 
perhaps,  that  he  would  not  willingly  impair  his  influence  with 
the  people;  and  the  negative  answer,  no  doubt,  they  desired,  as 
it  Avould  have  opened  what  appeared  to  them,  an  easy  way  to 
destroy  him,  by  a  prosecution  before  Pilate  for  a  political 
offence  against  the  supremacy  of  Cfesar. 

We  must  not  leave  this  passage  without  remarking,  how  com- 
pletely our  Lord's  Divine  nature  was  concealed  under  the  veil 
of  his  flesh.  Had  the  Pharisees  and  Herodians  known  who  he 
was,  it  would  not  have  been  possible  for  them  to  approach  him 
with  flattery  or  to  entertain  the  vain  conceit  of  "entangling 
him  in  his  talk."  They  thought  of  him  as  merely  a  man  in  his 
nature,  like  themselves,  though  endowed,  as  they  could  not 
avoid  seeing,  with  extraordinary  gifts  of  wisdona  and  power; 
yet  not  so  transcendently  wise,  that  he  might  not  be  over- 
reached and  ensnared;  nor  so  powerful  that  he  might  not  be 
overcome.     See  1  Cor.  ii.  8. 

Matt.  xxii.  18,  19.  "But  Jesus  perceived  their  wickedness, 
and  said,  [rather,  But  Jesus,  well  knowing  their  wickedness, 
said,  John  ii.  24,  25,]  Why  tempt  ye  me,  hypocrites  ? 
[Wliy  do  ye  try  me,  to  ensnare  me,  ye  dissemblers?]  Show 
me  (-0  vojuaiia  zoo  xr^voou)  the  tribute  money:  [the  coinage  in 
which  tribute  is  demanded  by  Csesar]  and  they  brought  him  a 
[denarius]  penny." 


278  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

The  stress  of  our  Lord's  demand  was  laid  on  the  coinage 
{to  vopttaixa,)  as  is  evident  from  his  next  question. 

Matt.  xxii.  20,  21.  "Whose  is  this  image  [thiov,  effigies'] 
and  superscription  [iTziypacprj,  inscriptio]  ?  They  say  unto  him, 
Cnesar's.  Then  saith  he  to  them,  [this,  then,  is  Caesar's 
money,  and  Cfesar  demands  tribute  in  his  own  money,]  Render 
then  unto  Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar's  and  to  God  the 
things  that  are  God's." 

It  was  the  coinage  that  gave  the  money  currency.  It  was 
that  which  gave  it  an  arbitrary  or  nominal  value,  according  to 
the  will  of  Caesar,  independently  of  its  intrinsic  or  real  value, 
which  would  depend  on  its  weight.  Gen.  xxiii.  16 ;  xliii.  21 ; 
Ezra  viii.  25,  26,  27,  28,  29,  30;  Job  xxviii.  15;  Jer.  xxxii.  9; 
Zech.  xi.  12.  Consequently,  the  currency  of  money  (by  tale, 
without  regard  to- weight)  of  the  kind  and  coinage  produced, 
was  a  confession  of  the  subjection  of  their  civil  or  political 
state  to  Caesar.  This  answer,  therefore,  established,  at  least 
indirectly,  the  lawfulness  of  the  tribute,  and  virtually  affirmed 
that  the  payment  of  it  was  not  inconsistent,  in  their  present 
and  prospective  condition,  with  their  duties  to  God.  But 
because  he  did  not  see  proper  to  return  a  direct  affirmative  to 
the  question,  the  priests,  to  whom  his  ansAver  was  reported, 
perverted  it  into  a  negative,  as  we  learn  from  Luke  xxiii.  2. 

Some  have  supposed  that  our  Lord  adopted  this  form  of 
answer  to  mitigate  the  odium  of  a  direct  admission  of  the  rights 
of  Caesar,  but  the  supposition  cannot  be  admitted  as  even  a 
possible  one.  Consider  the  time  of  the  transaction.  Our 
Lord's  public  ministry  was  ended.  The  doom  of  the  nation  he 
had  just  before  portrayed  in  his  matchless  parables;  his  own 
suiferings  on  the  cross  on  the  third  day  thereafter,  were  fully 
in  his  view.  Why  should  he,  had  he  been  merely  a  man,  desire 
to  mitigate  or  soften  the  odium,  which  he  foresaw  was  so  soon 
to  burst  upon  him  without  restraint?  His  motive  in  thus 
answering  the  question  had  respect,  we  cannot  doubt,  to  the 
condition  of  the  nation,  not  only  at  that  time,  but  during  all 
the  ages  of  the  present  dispensation,  even  down  to  the  time  of 
his  second  coming.  It  was  a  solemn  precept  given  to  them  at 
his  final  departure  from  them.  Matt,  xxiii.  39,  for  their  guidance 
in  their  subject  condition,  as  long  as  it  should  continue,  which 
we  know  will  be  until  the  final  restitution  of  the  nation  to  the 
land  of  the  covenant,  and  their  conversion.  Thus  we  see  how 
this  answer  connects  itself  with  the  parables  in  which  he  had 
portrayed  their  future  history.  It  speaks  to  that  people  to-day, 
what  it  spoke  to  those  whom  the  Lord  personally  addressed: 
"  Render  to  Caesar" — the  powers  to  which,  by  the  just  judgment 


ERRORS   OF   TUB   SADDUCEES.  279 

of  God  you  are  subject,   1  Tim.  ii.  2;  Rom.   xiii.  1 — 4,   "the 
things  that  are  C«?sar's,  and  to  God  the  things  that  are  God's." 

We  should  degrade  the  subject  and  derogate  from  the  majesty 
of  our  Lord,  if  we  Avere  to  regard  this  answer  as  evasive,  or  as 
an  adroit  escape  from  a  snare,  although  the  bystanders  may 
have  so  regarded  it  at  that  time.  To  ensnare  him  was  not 
possible.  See  Isa.  xlv.  9.  There  was  no  equality  nor  approxi- 
mation to  equality  between  him  and  his  questionei'S  in  any 
respect.  Rather  should  we  regard  his  answer  as  the  dictate 
of  the  Divine  will  respecting  their  future  conduct,  not  only 
during  the  short  space  their  national  state  would  be  permitted 
to  continue,  but  during  their  approaching  dispersion  among  the 
nations.  See  Jer.  xxix.  4,  7.  It  is  not  probable  that  the 
answer  was  received  or  understood  in  that  intent.  Certainly  it 
was  not  obeyed,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  was  given,  as  the  his- 
tory of  the  nation  until  its  utter  overthrow  under  Adrian,  A.  D. 
137,  proves. 

Matt.  xxii.  23.  "The  same  day  came  to  him  the  Saddu- 
cees,  which  say  that  there  is  no  resurrection"  [nor  angel  nor 
spirit.]     Acts  xxiii.  8. 

The  Sadducees  were  materialists.  They  held  that  the  souls 
of  men  were  mortal,  and  perished  with  their  bodies.  Josepkus' 
Jewish  War,  book  2.  chap.  12.  They  denied  the  existence  of 
demons,  which  they  included  under  the  name  of  angels.  Their 
question,  however,  had  respect  only  to  the  resurrection,  and 
this  part  only  of  their  tenets,  which  were  thoroughly  infidel, 
therefore  is  mentioned  by  the  Evangelists,  or  is  directly  noticed 
by  the  Saviour.  The  question  they  proposed  was  founded  upon 
a  case  which,  whether  real  or  imaginary,  was  a  possible  one, 
and  was  supposed  by  them  to  involve  a  difficulty  which  would 
go  far  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  an 
absurdity.  The  case  put  is  familiar  to  the  reader,  and  we  need 
not  transcribe  it. 

Matt.  xxii.  29.  "Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Ye 
do  err,  not  knowing  the  Scriptures  nor  the  power  of  God." 

Ignorance  is  a  fruitful  source  of  error.  Yet  of  many  things 
men  are  necessarily  ignorant.  Of  the  attributes,  the  works, 
and  the  ways  of  God,  it  is  but  a  little  they  can  know.  Job 
xxvi.  14;  Ps.  cxxxix.  6;  cxlv.  3.  Hence  the  reasonableness 
and  even  necessity  of  faith  in  things  relating  to  God.  Yet 
often,  and  without  being  sensible  of  it,  men  measure  the  mean- 
ing of  God's  words  by  their  conceptions  of  his  power.  Things 
marvellous  in  their  eyes,  they  suppose  must  be  marvellous  also 
in  the  eyes  of  God.  Zech.  xiii.  6;  Gen.  xviii.  14;  2  Kings 
vii.  2 ;  Luke  i.  20,  37 ;  xviii.  27.  They  are  often  bold  enough 
to  adjust  the  scheme  of  his  revealed  purposes  by  their  views  of 


280  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

the  fitness  of  things.  This  is  a  plausible,  because  it  is  a  dis- 
guised, form  of  infidelity.  In  the  text  the  Saviour  ascribed 
this  error  of  the  Sadducees  to  their  ignorance  of  God's  power. 
It  was  an  error  of  interpretation  arising  from  that  source;  for 
they  did  not  deny  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  at  least  of 
the  writings  of  Moses ;  but  their  low  views  of  the  power  of  God 
were  the  cause  of  their  misinterpretation  of  the  Scriptures  in 
this  and  probably  many  other  particulars.  If  this  be  the  cor- 
rect estimate  of  this  text,  there  are  even  now  many  Sadducean 
errors  which  do  not  pass  under  that  name. 

Matt.  xxii.  30.  "  For  in  the  resurrection  they  [men] 
neither  marry  nor  are  [wives]  given  in  marriage,  but  [both] 
are  {ox;  dyye?.oe)  as  [the]  angels  of  God  {iu  oupavio)  in  heaven." 

Mark  xii.  25.  "For  when  they  shall  rise  from  the  dead, 
they  neither  marry  nor  are  given  in  marriage,  but  are  (a»c 
dyye?M)  as  [the]  angels  in  heaven"  [cv  roit;  obpavoc;,  in  the 
heavens.] 

Luke  is  yet  more  explicit,  xx.  34 — 36.  "The  children  of 
this  world  {zoo  aiwvo;  zouroo)  marry  and  are  given  in  marriage, 
but  they  that  shall  be  accounted  worthy  to  obtain  that  world 
(roy  accopo;  kxecvoo  zw/^zcv)  and  the  resurrection  from  the  dead 
{xac  r^c  dvaazaaeax;  zr^;  ix  usxpcou,  and  that  resurrection  which 
is  from  among  the  dead,  viz.  the  first  resurrection,)  neither 
marry  nor  are  given  in  marriage;  neither  can  they  die  any 
more;  for  they  are  [laayyeXoc)  equal  to  [the]  angels,  and  are 
children  [uloc,  sons)  of  God,  being  children  (ulot,  sons)  of  the 
resurrection." 

The  Saviour  having  told  the  Sadducees  that  they  were  in 
error,  and  the  source  of  their  error,  proceeds  to  inform  them 
that  their  question  was  not  well  conceived  or  put,  being  founded 
upon  a  total  misconception  of  the  condition  of  those  who  shall 
be  raised  from  the  dead.  They  assumed,  as  the  basis  of  their 
question,  an  analogy  which  does  not  exist.  As  if  he  had  said, 
"Because  men  marry  and  women  are  given  in  marriage  in  this 
world,  you  ignorantly  assume  it  as  certain  that  the  marriage 
relation  will  continue  in  their  resurrection  state.  In  this  you 
err :  for  those  who  shall  be  deemed  worthy  of  being  raised  from 
among  the  dead  and  entering  into  that  glorious  kingdom  of 
priests  which  God  promised  to  Israel  at  Horeb,  will  be  gifted 
with  immortal  bodies.  They  will  be  made  angelic  in  their 
natures.  They  will  be  sons  of  God,  inasmuch  as  God,  by  his 
almighty  power,  will  raise  them- up  from  the  dead,  and  create 
them  anew  for  himself.  A  condition  so  enduring,  so  exalted, 
so  glorious,  is  absolutely  inconsistent  with  the  fleeting  earthly 
relation  of  marriage.  The  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  there- 
fore, involves  no  such  difficulty  as  you  imagine." 


CHRIST'S  ANSWER  RESPECTING  THE  RESURRECTION.       281 

In  thus  showing  the  Sadclucees  the  triviality  of  their  ques- 
tion, our  Lord  assumed,  without  pausing  to  prove,  the  existence 
of  angels,  which  also  they  denied.  Whether  he  intended  by 
this  allusion  to  angels  to  teach  the  immortality  of  the  raised 
dead,  or  the  incongruity  of  their  condition  with  the  marriage 
relation,  may  be  uncertain.  Perhaps  he  intended  both.  It  is 
plain,  hoAvever,  from  the  context  and  other  parts  of  Scripture, 
that  he  did  not  intend  a  comparison  in  all  respects.  The  sub- 
ject did  not  call  for  it.  Besides,  men  and  angels  are,  and  for 
ever  will  be,  different  orders  of  creatures,  and  while  men  dwell- 
ing on  this  earth  and  invested  with  bodies  of  flesh  and  blood, 
will  for  ever  be  inferior  to  the  angels,  yet  those  of  the  race 
who  shall  be  counted  worthy  of  the  resurrection  of  which 
our  Lord  spoke,  will,  by  virtue  of  their  union  to  him,  as  we  have 
reason  to  believe,  be  exalted  to  a  greater  glory  and  a  more 
glorious  inheritance  than  are  attainable  by  the  angels.  See 
1  Cor.  vi.  3:  Heb.  ii.  5,  7;  John  xvii.  22—24. 

Having  thus  disposed  of  the  case,  the  Saviour  might  have 
dropped  the  subject;  but  the  erroneous  doctrine  which  sug- 
gested it,  struck  at  the  very  existence  of  the  Elect  Church,  the 
members  of  which,  we  have  seen,  are  to  constitute  that  nation 
to  whom  he  had  just  before  declared  the  kingdom  of  God  shall 
be  given.  He  therefore  teok  up  the  main  question,  and  went 
on  to  say : 

Matt.  xxir.  31,  32.  "But  as  touching  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead,  have  ye  not  read  that  which  was  spoken  unto  you  by 
God,  saying,  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac, 
and  the  God  of  Jacob?  God  is  not  [the]  God  of  [the]  dead, 
[men]  but  of  [the]  living." 

Mark  xii.  26,  27.  "  And  as  touching  the  dead,  that  they 
rise,  have  ye  not  read  in  the  book  of  Moses,  how  in  the  bush, 
God  spake  unto  him,  saying:  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  and 
the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob.  He  is  not  the  God 
of  [the]  dead,  [men]  but  [the]  God  of  [the]  living;  ye  there- 
fore do  greatly  err." 

Luke  xx.  37,  38.  "Now  that  the  dead  are  raised,  [do  rise] 
even  Moses  showed  at  the  bush,  when  he  called  the  Lord  the 
God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob. 
For  he  is  not  [a]  God  of  [the]  dead  [men]  but  of  [the]  living : 
for  all  live  unto  Him." 

This  answer  silenced  the  Sadducees,  as  we  learn  from  verse 
34.  The  multitude,  who  heard  it,  perceived  its  conclusiveness. 
Yet,  strange  to  say,  learned  men  are  not  agreed  wherein  its 
force  or  appositeness  consists.  A  recent  commentator,  after 
stating  some  of  the  doubts  which  have  been  raised  upon  the 
question,  resolves  them  by  supposing  that  the  answer  was  not 
36 


282  NOTES  ON   SCRIPTURE. 

intended  as  an  argument,  but  as  an  authoritative  declaration  of 
the  truth.  We  regard  it  as  both.  But  we  are  chiefly  concerned 
with  it  at  present  as  an  argument,  and  in  that  light,  the 
bystanders  and  Sadducees  regarded  it. 

It  is  usual  with  commentators  to  isolate  the  whole  of  this 
passage  from  the  preceding  context,  and  interpret  it  as  they 
would  in  any  other  connection.  The  case  which  the  Sadducees 
stated,  and  the  question  which  they  put  upon  it,  are  totally 
unlike  the  question  of  the  Herodians,  and  both  equally  dis- 
parate from  the  parables  previously  recorded.  This  is  con- 
ceded. Yet  if  we  carefully  consider  our  Saviour's  replies  to 
these  questions,  in  connection  with  the  parables,  we  shall  per- 
ceive the  same  vein  of  thought  lying  underneath  both,  only 
with  different  modifications,  arising  from  the  diversity  of  the 
subjects  to  which  it  is  applied.  This  we  have  endeavoured  to 
show  in  respect  to  our  Lord's  answer  to  the  Herodians,  and 
intimated  in  respect  to  the  answer  under  consideration. 

Before  proceeding  further,  it  is  important  to  premise,  that 
our  Lord  does  not  speak  in  this  j^ssage  of  the  general  resur- 
rection of  all  the  dead,  but  only  of  the  resurrection  of  those 
[xaza^KodeuTSc;  zoo  o.uovoq  exscvoo  tu-)^scu)  who  shall  be  accounted 
worthy  of  that  world,  [nevum,  age  or  dispensation]  and  of  that 
resurrection,  (r;yc  ^x  vexpwu,  which-  is)  from  among  the  dead. 
This  is  evident  from  the  phraseology  of  Luke,  and  especially 
from  the  description  he  gives  of  their  condition  and  their  char- 
acter. They  will  be  constituted  by  the  very  act  of  their  resur- 
rection, "sons  of  God;"  made  equal  to  angels,  and  incapable 
of  dying  any  more.  See  1  John  iii.  2;  Rev.  xx.  6.  To  such, 
the  description  which  Paul  gives,  in  1  Cor.  xv.  42 — 49,  is 
designed  to  apply.  This  body,  or  portion  of  the  raised  dead, 
as  before  explained  in  our  paraphrase,  will  constitute  that 
nation  to  whom  God  will  give  the  kingdom,  which  he  condi- 
tionally promised  to  Israel  at  Horeb.  See  Matt.  xxi.  43,  and 
the  notes  on  that  verse. 

Now  this  covenant  being  made,  as  we  have  seen,  with  Israel, 
in  all  their  geyierations,  involved  the  resurrection  of  all  those  of 
them  who  had  died  in  faith,  as  the  necessary  or  appointed 
means  of  conferring  on  them  the  covenanted  blessings;  conse- 
quently, if  we  suppose  that  the  nation  had  received  Jesus  with 
the  obedience  of  the  heart,  instead  of  rejecting  him,  God  would 
have  not  only  conferred  the  promised  kingdom  upon  them,  but 
upon  all  those  (their  ancestors)  who  had  lived  and  died  in  the 
exercise  of  the  like  faith.  We  see  not  how  otherwise,  though 
we  do  not  allege  our  ignorance  as  an  argument,  God  could 
have  fulfilled  his  covenant  with  them,  and  we  are  justified  in 
assuming  that  he  would  have  fulfilled  it  in  this  way,  by  the 


KESURRECTION  PROMISED  IN  THE  ANCIENT  COVENANTS.      283 

reasoning  of  the  Saviour  in  the  passage  under  consideration, 
and  of  the  apostle  in  Heb.  ix.  17 — 19.  Yet  such  an  argument, 
framed  upon  the  covenant  at  Horeb,  would  have  been  hypo- 
thetical, inasmuch  as  the  nation  had  forfeited  the  condition 
upon  which  the  kingdom  was  promised.  Hence  our  Lord  fell 
back,  if  the  expression  may  be  allowed,  upon  the  earlier  cove- 
nant which  God  made  with  Abraham,  and  confirmed  unto  Isaac 
and  Jacob,  which,  being  absolute  and  unconditional  in  its 
terras,  the  apostle  informs  us,  Gal.  iii.  17,  remained  firm,  not- 
withstanding the  forfeiture  of  the  covenant  made  at  Horeb. 
See  B'Om.  xi.  30, 

It  is  under  this  earlier  covenant,  which,  as  we  have  just  said, 
is  absolute  and  unconditional  in  its  terms,  that  the  elect  nation 
or  substituted  people  of  which  our  Lord  spoke.  Matt.  xxi.  43, 
are  to  be  raised  up  and  formed.  Gal.  iii.  17.  This  earlier  cove- 
nant comprises  also  within  its  scope  the  covenant  with  David, 
Gal.  iii.  16,  which,  unlike  that  which  was  made  with  the  nation 
at  Horeb,  is  also  absolute  and  unconditional  in  its  terms.  2  Sam. 
xxiii.  5;  Isa.  Iv.  3;  Acts  xiii.  34. 

The  blessings  promised  in  all  these  covenants  are  of  the  most 
exalted  nature — the  gift  of  immortality,  and,  as  we  have  seen, 
exaltation  to  thrones  of  glory  in  the  times  of  the  restitution  of 
all  things.  This  elect  people  are  designated  under  various  rela- 
tions, all  of  which  are  unspeakably  glorious.  They  are  called 
the  redeemed  of  Christ,  his  friends,  his  brethren,  his  children, 
his  witnesses,  his  bride,  his  members,  members  of  his  body,  of 
his  flesh,  of  his  bones ;  his  fellow-suflerers,  fellow-kings,  fellow- 
priests,  the  sons  of  God,  sons  of  the  resurrection,  the  temples 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  They  are  said  to  be  one  with  Christ,  and 
he  their  first-born  brother. 

These  intimate  relations  to  the  Messiah,  and  the  exalted 
service,  under  him,  which  such  designations  or  descriptions 
imply,  in  the  administration  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  are  all 
involved  in  the  covenants  which  God  made  with  Abraham  and 
David,  as  well  as  in  the  covenant  which  he  made  with  the  nation 
of  Israel  at  Horeb,  the  principal  difference  being  that  in  the 
former  the  promises  were  absolute,  in  the  latter  they  were  con- 
ditioned upon  the  obedience  of  the  people.  But  if  there  be  no 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  none  of  these  privileges  can  be  en- 
joyed, neither  Christ  nor  his  chosen  people  could  be  raised,  and 
consequently  the  blessings  forfeited  by  the  nation  were,  at  the 
best,  but  ephemeral  in  their  nature,  and  their  loss  not  greatly 
to  be  deplored.     See  1  Cor.  xv.  32. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Sadducees,  therefore,  made  all  these 
covenants  empty  and  vain  things,  see  1  Cor.  xv.  12 — 18,  espe- 
cially in  respect  to  those  who  had  died  in  the  faith,  with  the 


284  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 

seal  of  God's  covenant  upon  them;  nor  did  it  hold  out  any 
better  hope  for  the  living,  upon  whom  the  penalty  of  the  origi- 
nal transgression  still  abode.  There  could  be  no  restitution  of 
all  things — no  kingdom  of  God  in  which  there  should  be  no  sin 
nor  any  curse.  According  to  their  tenets,  the  purpose  of  God 
to  take  the  kingdom  from  them,  Matt.  xxi.  43,  which  the 
Saviour  had  just  declared,  was  an  idle  threatening,  which  could 
not  much  harm  them  if  it  were  executed. 

This  part  of  our  Lord's  answer,  then,  is  to  be  considered 
with  respect  to  its  bearing  upon  these  covenants,  which,  we  need 
not  say,  are  far-reaching.  They  extend  to  the  whole  futurity 
of  the  earth,  and  all  that  God  has  purposed  to  accomplish  upon 
it.  They  include  all  the  means  and  agencies  he  has  appointed 
for  the  ends  he  has  in  view — especially  that  elect  people  whom 
he  has  chosen  to  serve  him  as  kings  and  priests  in  the  accom- 
plishment of  those  ends.  The  simple  fact  that  God  has  formed 
such  purposes  ensures  their  accomplishment.  His  power  is 
adequate  to  his  will.  Death  cannot  prevent  it ;  for  life  itself 
is  but  the  effect  of  his  will,  T.o.vxtz.  yo.p  ahzoi  ^wmv,  Luke 
XX.  38;  Gen.  i. 

It  is  not  probable  that  even  the  most  learned,  orthodox,  and 
devout  of  the  nation  at  that  time  had  any  proper  conception  of 
the  richness  and  glory  of  these  covenants,  or  of  the  particular 
intent  with  which  the  Saviour  alleged  them.  They  contain 
unfathomable  mysteries.  1  Cor.  ii.  7 — 9.  But  they  understood 
that  the  promises  which  God  made  to  Abraham,  to  Isaac,  and 
to  Jacob  were  absolute,  and  they  believed  that  he  would  surely 
perform  them,  even  to  those  of  former  generations,  who  had 
part  in  them ;  and  on  this  ground,  mainly,  they  taught  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  see  Acts  xxiv.  15,*  and  to  this  extent 
our  Lord's  reply  to  the  Sadducees  confirmed  it. 

*  Three  opinions  touching  the  resurrection  prevailed  to  a  greater  or  less 
extent  among  the  Jews.  (1)  Some  maintained  that  only  the  just  or  righteous 
of  their  nation  would  be  raised  ;  (2)  others  maintained  that  the  whole  of 
their  race  (all  Israelites)  would  be  raised;  and  (3)  some  maintained  that  all 
Israelites  and  some  Gentiles  would  be  raised.  It  is  evident  from  Acts  xxiv. 
14,  15,  that  the  Jews  of  St.  Paul's  day  did  not  adopt  the  first  of  these  opinions, 
but  they  appear  to  have  limited  the  resurrection  to  their  nation.  In  Romans 
ix.  2 — 5,  Paul  teaches  that  the  adoption,  by  which  he  meant  the  resurrection, 
Kom.  viii.  23,  pertained  to  Israelites;  and  hence  it  would  seem  that  the 
resurrection,  as  a  term  of  the  original  covenant,  was  limited  to  Israel.  Rabbi 
Bechai  says,  God  granted  four  special  honours  to  Israel,  viz.  (1)  tlie  land  of 
Canaan,  (2)  the  law,  (3)  prophecy,  amj  (4)  the  resurrection  of  the  dead. 
Josephus,  though  obscure,  evidently  did  not  believe  the  resurrection  would  be 
universal.  Yet  the  Pharisees  held  that  all  souls  were  immortal,  and  that  the 
souls  of  pious  Gentiles  would  be  happy,  though  in  a  disembodied  state,  see 
Larclncr  Cndih.,  book  i.  chap.  4,  g  i.,  and  that  the  souls  of  wicked  Gentiles 
would  suffer  punishment  in  their  disembodied  state,  see  Acts  xix.  15,  where 
a  sjiirit  is  repreSiUted  as  spcakinr/.     The  philosophical  Greeks,  on  the  other 


RESURRECTION  PROMISED  IN  THE  ANCIENT  COVENANTS.      285 

The  words  he  quoted,  "I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  the  God 
of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob,"  conveyed  a  distinct  allusion 
to  the  covenant  God  made  with  those  fathers,*  and  the  avowal 
that  he  was  their  God,  implied  that  he  would  punctually  fulfil 
to  them  all  he  had  promised.  Had  he  promised  them  nothing 
more  than  the  immortality  of  their  souls,  then  nothing  more 
could  be  inferred  from  this  relation.  But  his  covenant  included 
their  posterity,  the  Gentiles,  even  the  world  itself,  Rom.  iv.  13 ; 
Gal.  iii."  8,  and  many  specific  blessings,  which,  in  a  dispensation 
during  which  death  has  reigned  and  hitherto  has  passed  upon 
all,  llom.  V.  14,  could  not  be  fulfilled  without  raising  them 
from  the  dead,  in  order  that  they  may  be  the  recipients  of  the 
covenanted  blessings.  To  be  their  God,  then,  in  the  sense  of 
the  covenant,  is  to  be  their  God  as  living  men,  not  as  disem- 
bodied spirits.  The  force  of  the  last  clause,  Luke  xx.  38, 
*'for  all  live  unto  him,"  will  be  perceived  from  the  following 
paraphrase:  "  He  who  created  all  things  at  first  out  of  nothing, 
and  by  whom  all  creatures  live,  wills  to  be  a  God  to  them,  as 
living,  not  as  dead  men.  For  so  he  interprets  his  own  covenant 
with  them,  aind  nothing,  not  death  itself,  can  prevent  his  will: 
for  life  and  even  being,  originated  in  his  will,  and  continually 
depend  upon  it."  Acts  xvii.  28;  1  Cor.  i.  28. 

Matt.  xxii.  35 — iO.  "Then  one  of  them  [the  Pharisees,]  a 
lawyer  [yofjLcxoz,~\  asked  him  tempting  him  [making  trial  of  his 
skill,]  and  saying:  Master,  which  is  the  great  commandment 
of  the  law?  Jesus  said  unto  him,  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord 
thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all 
thy  mind.  [Deut.  vi.  5.]  This  is  the  first  and  the  great  com- 
mandment." 

This  is  a  full  answer  to  the  lawyer's  question.  What  our 
Lord  added  was  not  called  for  by  the  question,  but  was  neces- 
sary, as  we  shall  see  to  the  design  he  had  in  answering  it. 

"And  the  second  is  like  unto  it,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neigh- 
hand,  treated  the  doctrine  with  ridicule.  Acts  xvii.  32.  In  Romans  ii.  1 — 15, 
Paul  addresses  unbelieving  Jews  mainly  upon  principles  admitted  by  them. 
In  the  16th  verse  he  advances  a  doctrine  which  they  denied.  In  verses  7th 
and  10th,  he  speaks  of  the  rewards  of  well-doing,  and  in  verses  8th  and  9th 
of  the  punishment  of  those  who  do  evil.  It  is  probable  the  idea  of  the  resur- 
rection of  the  body  is  incl'.ided  in  the  {i^mv  etmtcv)  eternal  life  spoken  of  in  the 
7th  verse.  However  this  may  be,  the  New  Testament  teaches  the  absolute 
universality  of  the  resurrection  of  all  men,  whether  .lews  or  Gentiles.  But  it 
does  not  teach  that  all  men,  universally,  will  be  raised  from  the  dead  at  one 
and  the  same  time.  There  is  a  first  and  a  second  resurrection.  Rev.  xx.  5,  12; 
Luke  xiv.  14.  The  children  of  the  covenant  only,  or  that  elect  nation  of  which 
our  Lord  spoke,  Matt.  xxi.  43,  shall  have  part  in  the  first  resurrection.  See 
Harmnr's  MiscManeous  Works,  pp.  221 — 2G4,  for  a  more  full  account  of  the 
Jewish  doctrine  of  the  resurrection. 

*  Their  relation  to  each  other  as  co-covenantees  in  the  same  covenant,  is 
the  reason  why  the  Saviour  names  them  all,  and  not  one  of  them  only. 


286  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

bour  as  thyself.  On  these  two  commandments  hang  all  the  law 
and  the  prophets." 

The  question  was  a  very  important  one,  and  from  the  fact 
that  it  was  put  by  a  person  whose  special  employment  it  was 
to  interpret  the  law,  it  may  be  inferred  it  was  considered  a 
debatable  one.  It  was  a  practical  question,  and  the  lawyer, 
no  doubt,  proposed  it  under  the  impression  of  its  importance  in 
that  respect  to  the  nation,  which  he  took  it  for  granted  would 
continue  still  to  exist,  with  undiminished  prosperity,  till  Messiah 
should  come  and  crown  it  with  unwonted  glory  and  power. 
Our  Lord's  reply,  on  the  other  hand,  was  framed  upon  a  vivid 
and  perfect  apprehension  of  the  Divine  purposes.  The  whole 
scheme  of  Providence,  stretching  forward  to  the  consummation 
of  all  things,  was  present  to  his  mind,  and  his  answer,  while  it 
was  perfectly  apposite  to  the  question,  had  a  designed  though 
unexplained  reference  to  impending  and  remote  events,  of  which 
the  lawyer  had  no  conception. 

We  interpret  this  answer,  then,  as  we  did  that  to  the  question 
of  the  Herodians,  with  reference  not  merely  to  the  actual  pos- 
ture of  the  nation  at  that  time,  but  its  future  fortunes  in  all 
time  to  come.  The  people,  it  need  not  be  repeated,  were  on 
the  eve  of  their  national  overthrow  and  dispersion.  Jerusalem, 
then  standing  in  beauty  and  strength,  was  soon  to  be  destroyed. 
The  temple  in  which  they  then  stood  was  to  be  utterly  demol- 
ished. All  their  political,  social,  domestic,  and  religious  ties 
were  to  be  disrupted  by  their  dispersion  among  the  nations.  A 
new  dispensation  was  about  to  be  opened,  in  which  the  ceremo- 
nial worship  of  the  temple  would,  in  a  few  years,  become 
impracticable.  To  this  condition  our  Lord  alluded  at  the 
beginning  of  his  ministry,  in  his  conversation  with  the  woman 
of  Samaria,  John  iv.  23 ;  and  now  again,  though  less  explicitly, 
at  the  close  of  it,  in  the  words  we  are  considering.  What  part 
of  the  law  of  Moses — let  the  reader  consider  the  question — 
could  this  people  observe  and  practice,  during  those  days  of 
vengeance,  which  were  approaching,  when  their  city  should  be 
subject  to  Gentile  power,  and  themselves  scattered  by  the 
sword  ? 

The  Saviour,  in  view  of  these  events,  took  occasion  to 
embody  in  these  two  precepts  all  of  the  law,  which,  from  that 
time  onward,  would  be  useful  to  them.  The  typical  parts  of 
it  he  was  himself  about  to  fulfil.  The  spiritual  parts  of  it  only 
could  they  carry  with  them,  and- observe  and  transmit  to  their 
children.  These  could  be  retained  by  them,  and  ought  to  be, 
under  the  most  adverse  and  distressing  circumstances.  The 
Gospel  would  indeed  be  preached  to  them,  enjoining  repentance 
towards  God,  and  faith  in  their  rejected  Messiah,  without  which 


Christ's  question  respecting  his  title  as  lord.      287 

tliey  neither  would  nor  could  obey  these  precepts — the  first  of 
■which  was  the  measure  of  the  allegiance  they  owe  to  God,  and 
the  second  the  measure  of  the  duty  he  required  of  them 
towards  their  fellow-creatures.  Taken  in  connection  Avith  his 
answer  to  the  Herodians,  see  verse  21  and  notes,  they  form  a 
compendious  code  of  their  civil  or  political,  social  and  religious 
duties.  Indeed  the  first  precept  in  tlds  answer  is  expository  of 
the  second  precept  in  the  answer  to  the  Herodians.  For  when 
he  said  to  them,  Render  to  God  the  things  that  are  God's,  he 
imposed  no  other  duty  than  that  of  fulfilling  this  first  and  great 
command.    See  Mark  xii.  32,  33,  34. 

Considered  in  this  view,  there  is  great  beauty  in  these 
answers  of  our  blessed  Lord  to  the  ensnaring  questions  pro- 
posed to  him  as  he  was  about  to  leave  the  temple.  How 
suitable  to  the  loftiness  of  his  character!  He  speaks  as  a 
lawgiver,  abrogating,  in  some  sense,  the  former  code,  which 
was  soon  to  become  impracticable  in  many  of  its  precepts,  in 
order  that  he  might  adjust  it  to  their  altered  condition,  yet  pre- 
serving its  spirit  and  sense  under  new  forms. 

How  suitable,  also,  to  the  benevolence  of  his  character !  He 
had  come  to  save  them.  He  wept  over  their  blindness  and 
unbelief,  and  their  consequent  rejection  of  God.  In  these  pre- 
cepts he  gives  them  his  parting  injunctions,  which  it  would 
have  been  well  for  them  in  all  their  generations  to  observe. 
That  admiration  which  discovers  nothing  in  these  passages 
beyond  a  strife  of  intellects,  or  an  exhibition  of  superior  dia- 
lectic skill,  would  degrade  the  Lord  of  glory  to  the  puny 
measure  of  the  potsherds  of  the  earth. 

Matt.  xxii.  41 — 45.  "While  the  Pharisees  were  gathered 
together,"  [that  is,  while  they  remained  together,  before  they 
had  dispersed  from  the  place  where  they  had  assembled,  see 
verse  34,]  "Jesus  asked  them,  saying:  What  think  ye  of  [the] 
Christ?"  [whom  ye  are  expecting.]  "Whose  son  is  he?  They 
say  unto  him,  The  son  of  David.  He  saith  unto  them,  How 
then  doth  David  in  spirit"  [moved  by  inspiration  of  the  Holy 
Spirit]  "call  him"  [that  is,  the  Christ,  his  Adon,]  "Lord: 
saying.  The  Lord"  [Jehovah]  "said  unto"  [Adoni]  "my  Lord, 
Sit  thou  at  my  right  hand  till  I  make  thine  enemies  thy  foot- 
stool." Psalm  ex.  1.  "If  David  then  call  him"  [Adoni, 
my]  "Lord,"  [not  my  son]  "how  then  is  he"  [the  Christ]  "his 
Son?" 

These  questions,  we  conceive,  were  suggested  by  the  question 
of  the  lawyer  which  has  just  been  considered,  or  rather  by  the 
answer  Avhich  our  Lord  had  given  to  it.  He  had  just  declared 
the  duty  they  owed  to  God.  The  same  duty,  however,  they 
owed  to  him  as  God's  vicegerent  on  earth.    John  v.  21 — 23. 


288  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTUKE. 

Yet  they  had  virtually  rejected  him,  under  a  misapprehension 
of  his  nature  and  office.  The  second  of  these  questions,  founded 
upon  the  quotation  from  Ps.  ex.  1,  pointed  them  directly  to  the 
source  of  their  error.  As  if  he  had  said,  "  The  Christ  promised 
to  you  is  a  much  more  exalted  being  than  you  conceive  him  to 
be.  Even  David,  in  whom  you  glory,  as  the  greatest  of  your 
kings,  moved  by  inspiration,  called  him  his  (Adon)  Lord.  It 
is,  then,  only  in  some  mysterious  sense  that  David  cal-ls  him 
his  Son." 

That  the  person  whom  David  calls  his  (Adon)  Lord  is  the 
Christ,  is  evident  from  the  question.  In  fact  the  Saviour 
assumes  it  as  unquestionable,  and  the  Pharisees  did  not  deny 
the  assumption,  and  this  proves  that  such  was  the  commonly 
received  interpretation.  That  the  same  person — this  Lord 
(Adon)  of  David — is  a  priest  for  ever,  according  to  the  order 
of  Melchizedec,  is  proved  by  the  4th  verse  of  Psalm  ex., 
from  which  this  quotation  is  made.  Now  the  office  of  priest 
belongs  to  the  human  nature.  A  priest  must  be  a  man,  not  an 
angel,  not  the  Holy  Spirit,  nor  the  Son  of  God  in  his  Divine 
nature;  for  every  high  priest,  saith  the  apostle,  is  taketi  from 
among  men,  &c.  Heb.  v.  1 — 6.  See  Whitby's  Com.  on  Heh. 
vii.  1;  also  1  Tim.  ii.  5;  Heb.  xii.  24.  Of  course,  David  had 
respect  to  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  when  he  called  him  his 
(Adon)  Lord.  We  may  add  that,  in  his  human  nature  only, 
was  the  Messiah  capable  of  exaltation.  In  his  Divine  nature, 
he  was  God.  John  i.  1.  The  whole  of  this  Psalm,  in  fact,  is 
prophetical  of  the  exaltation  of  Christ  as  the  Son  of  Man,  after 
his  resurrection  from  the  dead,  and  is  so  treated  by  the  inspired 
apostles.  Markxvi.  19;  Acts  ii.  34— 36 ;  Eph.  i.  20— 22 ;  Heb. 
ii.  7,  8;  X.  12,  13;  vi.  20;  1  Pet.  iii.  22;  1  Cor.  xv.  25;  and 
see  Matt.  xxvi.  64;  Mark  xiv.  62;  Luke  xxii.  69.  Finally, 
the  person  represented  as  speaking  throughout  this  Psalm  is 
Jehovah,  see  Heb.  text — the  person  represented  as  being  spoken 
to,  David  calls  his  (Adon)  Lord.  They  cannot,  therefore,  be 
one  and  the  same  person. 

The  Saviour's  question  then  presents  this  difficulty:  how  the 
Messiah  in  his  human  nature  can  be  the  Lord  of  David,  from 
whom,  according  to  the  flesh,  he  was  to  descend.  It  is  to  be 
observed  here,  that  the  question  is  framed  according  to  the  con- 
ception which  the  Pharisees  themselves  entertained  of  the  Christ. 
They  regarded  him  merely  as  a  man,  like  David,  although  a 
greater  man,  and  a  more  successful  and  glorious  king.  Had 
they  believed  that  the  Son  of  God  in  his  Divine  nature  would 
become  incarnate  in  the  person  of  the  Messiah,  the  question 
would  have  presented  no  difficulty  except  that  which  arises  from 
the  proper  interpretation  of  the  Psalm.     They  might  have  said, 


CHRIST'S   QUESTION   RESPECTING   HIS   TITLE   AS   LORD.      289 

The  Messiah  will  unite  in  his  person  the  Divine  and  the  human 
natures,  and  David  recognized  him  as  his  superior  in  his  Divine 
nature,  and  in  his  human  nature  only  in  consequence  of  the 
honour  conferred  upon  it  by  its  union  with  the  Divine  nature. 
This  is  the  solution  of  the  difficulty  which  may  strike  the  reader 
as  the  true  one,  being  founded  upon  what  we  know  to  be  the 
fact.  It  is  important,  however,  to  consider  whether  it  was  pro- 
posed in  this  view  by  the  Saviour.  As  the  Son  of  God,  the 
second  person  of  the  Trinity,  the  Christ  was  undoubtedly  not 
only  the  (Adon)  Lord  of  David,  but  his  Creator.  But  was  he 
not  also,  in  another  relation,  the  (Adon)  Lord  of  David  ?  As 
the  Son  of  Man,  we  have  seen  he  was  the  King  of  the  kings 
and  the  Lord  of  the  lords  of  the  world.  All  the  powers  of 
nature — all  material  and  spiritual  beings  are  absolutely  subject 
to  his  will.  In  this  relation  he  became  incarnate  in  the  line  of 
David,  the  purpose  of  which,  when  first  disclosed  by  Nathan  to 
that  pious  king,  filled  him  wdtli  amazement.  As  Son  of  Man 
he  will  hereafter  visibly  appear  to  judge  all  nations.  Matt. 
XXV.  31 — 46  ;  xvi.  27 ;  Acts  xvii.  31 ;  John  v.  27,  and  preside 
over  the  world  as  the  second  Adam,  (ts^^affin  ^2  lin»n)*  the  Lord 
from  heaven.  1  Cor.  xv.  47. 

In  reference  to  this  relation,  we  conceive,  the  Lord  Jesus 
proposed  this  question  to  the  Pharisees,  and  Psalm  ex.  jus- 
tifies this  interpretation:  For  the  same  exalted  being  Avhom 
David  calls  his  Lord  (Adoni),  Jehovah  constitutes  a  priest  for 
ever  [sc^  zov  accoua,  LXX. ;  Heb.  v.  6,)  and  exalts  to  his  right 
hand.  In  this  sublime  relation,  David  in  the  Spirit  beheld  him, 
when  he  called  him  "Lord." 

The  reader  is  referred  for  a  more  full  explanation  of  the 
grounds  of  this  interpretation,  to  the  notes  on  Matt.  viii.  28 — 

*  The  word  (^I'nst")  Adon  signifies,  ordinarily,  (sustentator,  columen  familise 

seu  reipublicae,)  the  sustainer  or  supporter  of  a  family  or  state,  and  is  so  called 
from  (llt^)  Eden,  basis;  because,  as  the  basis  or  foundation  supports  the  edifice 

or  structure  erected  upon  it,  so  a  family  or  state  is  supported  by  its  ruler  (Adon) 
or  Lord.  In  this  sense  we  apply  the  word  to  the  Son  of  Man,  as  the  (Adon) 
Lord  and  Judge  and  Ruler  of  the  world.  Such  powers  and  prerogatives  be- 
long, by  Divine  constitution,  to  his  Adamic  character.  Ps.  viii.  6;  Heb.  ii.  7,  8; 
The  word  is  an  appellative,  and  is  used  in  Scripture  as  well  with  reference  to 
God  as  to  men.  Thus,  in  Ps.  viii.  1,  Jehovah  is  addressed  as  (Adonenu)  our 
Lord — our  supporter.  And  such  he  is,  in  the  highest  possible  sense.  In  one 
of  our  hymns  we  say:  "God  my  supporter  (Adoni,  my  Adon,)  and  my  hope, 
my  Rplp  for  ever  nigh."  Sarah  called  Abraham  (Adoni)  my  Lord,  Gen. 
xviii.  12;  1  Pet.  iii.  6,  in  the  sense  of  her  inferiority  to  and  dependence  on 
him.  See  various  examples  of  the  use  of  this  word  in  Ps.  xii.  4;  Gen.  xlv.  8; 
Exod.  xxiii.  17;  Ps.  cxiv.  7;  Isa.  i.  24;  Mai.  iii.  1 ;  Josh.  iii.  11;  Ps.  xcvii.  5; 
Gen.  xxiii.  6,  &c.  Some  find  the  same  figurative  idea  in  the  word  y2aa-Aa/f  (king.) 
because  a  king  is  quasi  /i^trit  too  xsm.  See  Gussetius  Comm.  Heb.  Ling,  and 
Forster's  Heb.  Lex. ;  also  Taylor's  Heb.  Concord. 

37 


290  NOTES   ON  SCRIPTURE. 

27,  24,  26,  27,  28,  32;  ix.  4;  xi.  25—27;  xii.  8,  18;  xlli. 
87—43;  xvi.  13,  14,  28;  xvii.  22,  23;  xx.  28,  which  it  is 
hoped  he  will  carefully  consider  before  he  rejects  it. 

Matt.  xxii.  46.  "  And  no  man  [no  one  of  them]  was 
able  to  answer  him  a  word."  No  one  of  them  could  give  the 
reason  or  explain  why  or  in  what  sense  David  called  the  Christ 
his  Lord. 

They  did  not  understand  the  mystery  of  the  Messiah's 
nature  either  as  the  Son  of  Man  or  Son  of  God.  It  was  as 
much  hidden  from  the  learned  of  the  nation  as  it  was  from  the 
common  people.  John  xii.  34;  see  Rev.  xxii.  16.  His  priest- 
hood too,  or  the  nature  and  grounds  of  it,  and  the  sacrifice 
which  it  was  appointed  to  him  to  make,  were  equally  hidden 
from  them.  This  is  evident  from  the  laboured  argument  of  the 
apostle  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  chaps,  v.  vi.  vii.  viii. 
This  priesthood  we  have  endeavoured  to  show  was  connected 
with  his  Adamic  ofiice  as  the  Son  of  Man.  The  Saviour  gave 
them  no  other  clue  to  the  question  than  that  furnished  by  the 
Psalm  from  which  he  made  the  quotation.  It  was  not  one  of 
the  things  which  it  belonged  to  him,  at  that  time,  to  explain: 
for  the  Psalm  presupposed  his  rejection  by  them,  as  his 
enemies,  and  his  exaltation,  after  his  sacrificial  work  was 
performed,  to  the  throne  of  Jehovah.  It  also  presupposed  his 
right,  as  their  Lord,  to  the  supreme  homage  of  their  natures — 
the  same  homage  which  he  had  just  declared  was  due  to  God 
the  Father,  verse  37.  Herein  lies  the  connection  between  this 
question  of  the  Saviour  and  the  question  of  the  lawyer.  The 
lawyer  had  asked  him,  what  is  the  chief  duty  of  man — the 
great  commandment  of  the  law.  The  Saviour  answered, 
"Supreme  love  to  God,  and  the  offering  up  to  him  and  his 
service  of  all  the  energies  of  your  natures."  He  then  inquires, 
"But  what  think  ye  of  the  homage  due  to  Christ?"  David, 
the  greatest  of  your  kings,  and  honoured  above  them  all  by  the 
covenant  God  made  with  him,  Ps.  Ixxxix.  35 — 37,  called  him 
his  Lord,  thus  acknowledging  his  subjection  to  him,  although  he 
was  not  to  be  raised  up  from  his  seed  till  long  after  his  death. 
Acts  ii.  29 — 31.  How  then  could  David  owe  him  homage,  or 
render  it  to  him  ?  This  was  the  first  diflSculty  to  be  resolved, 
and  in  order  to  point  them  to  the  means  of  resolving  it,  he 
inquires  further,  "How,  or  in  what  sense,  and  by  what  means 
the  Christ  is,  or  is  to  be  David's  son  ?  The  proper  answer  to 
this  question  would  have  shown  that  the  same  honour  and 
service  which  are  due  to  God,  as  he  had  just  declared,  were 
due  also  to  Christ,  as  the  Son  of  Man — the  Adam  of  the  ever- 
lasting covenant,  and  the  Lord  of  the  world.  For  such  was 
the  Divine  will.  John  v.  23—27. 


THE   INTIMATE    CONNECTION    OF   THESE    PASSAGES.         291 

But  there  is  another  connection  to  be  noticed,  which  will  cast 
additional  light  upon  the  whole  passage.  In  the  parable  of  the 
vineyard,  the  householder  is  represented  as  saying  to  himself, 
"they  will  reverence  my  son."  As  if  he  had  said,  "My 
servants  the  husbandmen  have  rejected  and  maltreated,  because 
they  were  servants,  although  they  knew  they  were  sent  by  me. 
But  my  son  is  my  heir,  and  knowing,  as  they  do,  that  he  will 
inherit  my  possessions  and  my  honours,  they  will  reverence 
him  as  they  would  reverence  me."  It  is  evident  from  the 
parable,  that  the  householder  counted  upon  the  honour  due  to 
the  relation,  rather  than  upon  the  consideration  due  to  the 
commission  which  he  himself  had  given,  because  that  had  been 
disregarded  in  the  case  of  his  servants.  The  event,  it  need  not 
be  added,  falsified  this  expectation.  The  son  found  himself,  at 
the  very  moment  of  his  arrival,  in  the  midst  of  enemies.  To 
this  circumstance  of  the  parable,  the  Saviour,  as  we  conceive, 
tacitly  alludes  in  his  quotation  from  Psalm  ex.  1.  For 
observe,  the  question  he  proposed  to  the  Pharisees  turned 
exclusively  upon  the^rs^  clause  of  the  verse,  "The  Lord  said 
unto  my  Lord."  There  was  no  occasion  then  to  quote  the 
clause  which  relates  to  the  subjugation  of  Messiah's  enemies, 
unless  he  intended  a  latent  or  indirect  allusion  to  his  actual 
posture  at  that  time.  Thus  considered,  this  part  of  the  quo- 
tation is  full  of  meaning.  Jerusalem,  at  that  very  time,  was 
crowded  with  myriads  of  enemies  who,  on  the  third  day  there- 
after, were  to  demand  his  crucifixion.  Pilate  and  Herod  and 
Roman  soldiers  were  there.  See  Acts  iv.  27.  That  very  hour 
he  had  been  insidiously  attacked  by  the  chief  priests  and  elders, 
Herodians  and  Pharisees,  with  the  design  to  ensnare  him,  and 
compass  his  death.  We  may  add,  the  quotation  was  also 
a  prediction  of  the  result  of  the  conflict,  and,  in  this  particular, 
it  goes  beyond  the  parable.  It  foretells  his  exaltation  to 
Jehovah's  throne,  and  the  utter' subjugation  of  all  his  enemies 
by  Divine  power,  and  the  exaction  of  the  homage  due  to  him  as 
the  Lord  of  David  and  the  Lord  of  the  world. 

Thus  we  perceive  that  these  questions  of  our  Lord  spring 
from  the  same  great  vein  of  thought  which  pervades  all  his 
instructions  in  the  temple  upon  that  memorable  day.  Although 
drawn  forth  by  disconnected  and  apparently  irrelated  questions, 
there  is  a  logical  connection  between  his  questions  and  his 
answers  to  their  questions,  eminently  suited  to  the  solemn  occa- 
sion, and  the  Divine  Majesty  of  the  Saviour. 

Matt,  xxiii.  A  leading  object  of  these  notes  is  to  trace 
the  connection  of  the  several  parts  of  the  evangelical  record, 
and  thus  to  illustrate  obscure  yet  confessedly  important  pas- 
sages, and  also  furnish  distinct  internal  evidence  of  its  truth. 


292  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

Of  critical  commentaries  we  have  an  abundance,  but  none 
written  with  a  sole  view  to  this  object.  The  writer  has  not 
been  able  to  accomplish  much  in  this  way,  but  what  he  has 
done  may  serve,  to  some  extent,  as  hints  to  others  more  com- 
petent to  the  undertaking,  and  more  at  leisure  to  accomplish  it. 
In  the  notes  on  Matt.  i.  1,  it  was  suggested,  that  this  Gospel - 
was  composed  according  to  a  preconceived  plan,  which  the 
author  kept  steadily  in  view,  both  in  the  selection  and  in  the 
arrangement  of  the  materials  composing  it.  In  the  notes  on 
Matt.  xiv.  1,  2,  this  matter  was  adverted  to  again,  and  the 
reader  was  invited  to  review  the  proofs  which  had  been  given 
in  support  of  the  hypothesis.  We  now  remark  that  whatever 
judgment  diiferent  readers  may  form  of  the  method  of  the 
Evangelist,  none,  it  is  probable,  will  be  disposed  to  deny  that 
our  Lord,  in  his  discourses  and  conversations,  pursued  a  chain 
of  thought,  which,  if  the  links  of  connection  could  be  dis- 
covered, would  satisfactorily  explain  many  expressions  and 
transitions  otherwise  obscure,  if  not  quite  unaccountable.  What 
the  writer  means  by  this  remark  will  be  understood  by  those 
readers  who  have  carefully  considered  the  notes  on  the  twenty- 
first  and  twenty-second  chapters.  We  have  now  come  to  one 
of  the  most  obscure  transitions  in  any  of  our  Lord's  discourses. 
He  was  still  in  the  temple  surrounded  by  crowds  of  the  people, 
among  whom  were  dispersed  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  Sadducees 
and  Herodians,  priests,  elders,  and  rulers.  Many  of  his  dis- 
ciples, besides  the  twelve  apostles,  we  infer,  were  also  present. 
The  time  was  the  third  day  before  the  Passover,  at  which  he 
suffered  and  fulfilled  the  typical  parts  of  the  Levitical  ritual, 
and  as  a  sign  of  it  the  veil  of  the  temple  was  to  be  miraculously 
rent  through  the  midst  from  the  top  to  the  bottom.  See  notes 
on  Matt,  xxvii.  51 — 53;  Luke  xxiii.  45.  On  the  fifth  day 
after  this  his  last  public  discourse,  he  was  to  rise  from  the  dead, 
ascend  to  the  Father,  and  on  the  approaching  Pentecost  to  send 
the  Holy  Spirit  upon  his  apostles,  endow  them  with  miraculous 
powers,  and  send  them  forth  to  inaugurate,  under  his  Headship, 
a  new  dispensation.  Yet  with  the  most  profound  and  lively 
consciousness  of  these  events  and  purposes,  he  turns  from  his 
questioners,  whom  he  had  silenced,  to  the  multitude  and  his 
disciples,  and  thus  continued  his  discourse: 

Matt,  xxiii.  2,  3.  "The  Scribes  and  Pharisees  sit  in  Moses' 
seat.  All,  therefore,  whatsoever  they  bid  you  observe,  that 
observe  and  do." 

At  first  view  it  strikes  us  as  an  inconsistency  that  our  Lord 
should  at  such  a  time,  and  under  the  circumstances  mentioned, 
either  admit  the  authority  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  to 
occupy  the  seat  of  Moses,  or  enjoin  it  on  the  people  or  his 


THE  JEWS  WERE  TO  HEAR  THE  TEACHERS  OF  THE  LAW.  293 

disciples  to  obey  their  injunctions.  What  further  need  could 
there  be  for  their  instructions,  seeing  he  was  so  soon  to  prepare 
and  send  to  them  other  and  inspired  teachers,  who  would 
authoritatively  and  infallibly  declare  to  them  the  Divine  will? 
Our  perplexity  is  increased  when  we  consider  the  character 
which  he  proceeds  almost  immediately  to  draw  of  these  teachers. 
See  verses  13 — 36. 

To  relieve  the  subject  of  this  difficulty  we  must  consider  that 
our  Lord  had  in  view  the  course  of  Divine  Providence  and  the 
respite  of  judgment  God  would  give  the  nation  during,  what  we 
may  consider,  the  lifetime  of  that  generation.  In  the  remarks 
on  Matt.  xxii.  6,  8,  and  Acts  iii.  19,  21,  it  was  intimated  that 
a  further  trial  was  to  be  made  of  the  nation,  under  the  dispen- 
sation of  the  Holy  Spirit,  for  the  space  of  nearly  forty  years, 
during  which  they  should  have  an  order  of  proofs  which  it  was 
not  consistent  with  the  Divine  plan  to  give  them  during  our 
Lord's  personal  ministry.  The  first  and  greatest  of  these 
proofs  was  the  Lord's  resurrection,  and  to  this  he  alluded 
under  the  sign  of  Jonas  the  prophet,  in  his  answer  to  the 
demand  the  Pharisees  and  the  Sadducees  made  upon  him  for 
further  evidence.  See  Matt.  xvi.  4,  and  xii.  38 — 40,  and  notes 
on  these  verses ;  Luke  xi.  30  is  very  explicit.  Of  the  fact  of 
his  resurrection  they  had  the  most  convincing  evidence.  See 
notes  on  Matt,  xxviii.  11 — 15.  This  evidence  was  to  be 
enhanced  by  the  testimony  and  enforced  by  the  miraculous 
powers  and  other  extraordinary  gifts  conferred  upon  the 
apostles,  who  for  a  time  confined  their  ministry  to  the  nation. 
See  Acts  x.  xi.  19;  xiii.  46;  see  also  Rom.  ix.  4.  It  is 
worthy  of  remark  that  the  duration  of  this  respite  of  judgment, 
upon  the  peradventure  the  nation  might  still  believe  and  obey, 
was  not  chronologically  defined.*  God  reserved  it  in  his  own 
power  to  put  an  end  to  it  by  his  providence,  as  he  has  the 
times  and  the  seasons  appointed  to  precede  the  restitution  of 
the  kingdom  to  Israel.  Acts  i.  6,  7.  The  end  of  tlie  respite, 
we  know,  came  when  Jerusalem  and  the  temple  were  destroyed, 
and  the  nation  was  broken  up  and  dispersed  among  the 
Gentiles.  See  notes  on  the  parable  of  the  marriage,  Matt, 
xxii.  6,  8.  The  sense  of  the  verses  under  consideration, 
therefore,  as  we  conceive  of  it,  is  expressed  in  the  following 
paraphrase : 

"The  Scribes  and  Pharisees  sit  in  Moses'  seat,  and,  by 
Divine  permission,  they  will  continue  to  occupy  it  during  the 
lifetime  of  the  greater  part  of  this  generation.      For  it  is  the 

*  Perhaps  there  is  a  mystical  allusion  to  it  in  the  forty  days  appointed  for 
the  repentance  of  Nineveh,  as  we  shall  have  occasion  to  notice  hereafter. 


294  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

Divine  purpose,  notwithstanding  the  enormous  wickedness  of 
this  people,  to  put  them  upon  a  further  trial,  under  the  economy 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  order  to  prove  whether  by  any  means 
they  can  be  saved  from  the  dreadful  judgments  which  have 
been  threatened  against  them.  As  long,  therefore,  as  God  in 
his  providence  shall  permit  them  to  exercise  the  functions  of 
their  office,  observe  and  do  whatsoever  they  shall  command  you 
to  do,  in  accordance  with  [or  out  of]  the  law." 

This  paraphrase  connects  what  we  suppose  to  be  the  latent 
thoughts  of  the  Saviour  with  the  words  he  uttered.  He  had 
before  predicted  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  state.  Matt, 
xxii.  7,  and  the  taking  away  of  the  covenanted  kingdom,  Matt, 
xxi.  43,  but  it  did  not  seem  proper  to  him  on  this  occasion 
publicly  to  enter  into  further  particulars,  by  which  light  w"Ould 
be  cast  upon  the  times  of  these  events.  It  may  be  proper  to 
add  in  this  place,  that  this  provision  of  the  Divine  mercy,  by 
which  the  times  of  the  nation  were  prolonged,  during  the  life- 
time, it  is  probable,  of  all  those  who  were  personally  guilty  of 
rejecting  the  Saviour,  may  account  for  the  continuance  of 
Levitical  rites  and  practices  by  Jewish  Christians  in  the  apos- 
tolic churches,  and  the  allowance  and  even  practice  of  them,  to 
a  certain  extent,  by  the  apostles  themselves.  Acts  xvi.  1; 
xxi.  20 — 24,  26,27;  xx.  16.  The  Saviour's  words  not  only 
allow,  but  seemingly  command,  an  observance  of  them  by  Jews, 
during  the  period  of  which  he  spoke.  In  respect  to  Gentile 
Christians,  however,  no  such  obligation  was  intimated,  and  no 
such  practice  was  permitted  by  the  apostles.  As  inspired 
teachers  and  ministers  of  Christ,  the  apostles  were  qualified 
and  authorized  to  carry  out  the  Divine  plan  in  this  particular, 
Acts  XV.  23 — 29,  and  it  is  not  improbable  that  it  was  on  the 
authority  of  the  very  passage  under  consideration  the  apostles 
drew  the  distinction,  before  mentioned,  between  Jewish  and 
Gentile  converts. 

But  while  the  Saviour  thus  recognized  the  authority  of  the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees  as  teachers  of  the  law,  (and  as  we  may 
say,  for  a  little  space,  prolonged  their  office,  by  his  authority,) 
he  cautioned  the  people  and  his  disciples  against  the  evil  in- 
fluence of  their  example — thus  drawing  a  distinction  between 
their  personal  and  official  character  and  relations.  The  Sad- 
ducees  and  the  Herodians  were  worse — certainly  not  better — 
men  than  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  yet  nothing  is  said  of  them 
in  the  ensuing  discourse.  The  reason  is,  the  latter  were  not 
looked  upon  by  the  people  as  teachers,  or  guides,  or  even  as 
Avorthy  of  imitation  in  their  conduct.  The  Scribes  and  Phari- 
sees, on  the  other  hand,  rightfully  occupied  the  seat  of  their 
great  lawgiver,  and  the  Lord  himself  had  just  given  his  own 


WHY  THE  TEACHERS  OF  THE  LAW  WERE  TO  BE  HEARD.      295 

sanction  to  their  public  official  relations.  This  last  considera- 
tion especially,  rendered  the  caution  of  the  utmost  practical 
importance,  lest  the  command  he  had  given  his  disciples  and 
the  people  should  be  perverted.  Add  to  this  the  exterior 
conduct  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  as  we  may  infer  from 
this  chapter,  was  beautiful,  verses  27,  28,  and  imposing.  Ap- 
parently they  were  men  of  prayer,  verse  14 — zealous  in  pro- 
moting religion,  verse  15 — punctilious  in  the  performance  of 
the  smallest  religious  obligations,  verse  23.  They  not  only 
acknowledged  but  seemingly  deplored  the  sins  of  former  gen- 
erations, verse  30,  and  were  careful  to  do  all  they  could  to 
repair  the  dishonour  and  the  wrongs  which  had  been  done  to 
the  holy  men  and  prophets  of  former  ages,  verse  29.  Had  the 
Saviour  therefore  given  this  command  without  the  caution,  the 
spirit  and  intent  of  it  might  have  been — probably  would  have 
been — misconceived,  and  the  people  and  his  disciples  might 
have  inferred  his  approbation  of  them  as  guides  in  morals  and 
conduct,  as  well  as  of  their  authority  as  teachers.  Accord- 
ingly, having  given  the  command  and  the  caution,  he  proceeds 
afterwards  to  lay  bare  their  real  character  in  the  sight  of  God, 
in  such  a  way  as  to  prevent  the  possibility  of  misconceiving 
his  meaning. 

Matt,  xxiii.  3,  4.  "But  do  ye  not  after  their  works,  for 
they  say  and  do  not.  For  [indeed]  they  bind  heavy  burdens 
and  grievous  [difficult]  to  be  borne,  and  they  lay  them  upon 
the  shoulders  of  men,  while  they  will  not  move  them  with  one 
of  their  fingers" — [will  not  put  forth  the  strength  of  a  finger 
to  move  them.] 

In  these  words  our  Lord  alludes  to  their  exposition  of  the 
precepts  of  Moses,  as  he  does  afterwards,  in  several  instances, 
in  his  direct  address  to  them,  verses  16 — 18,  from  which  we 
infer  he  did  not  intend  to  enjoin  implicit  obedience  to  all  their 
behests,  or  to  hold  them  up  as  infallible  interpreters  of  the 
law  they  had  been  commissioned  to  explain.  The  charge 
brought  against  them  in  this  verse  is  an  excess  of  power-^an 
unauthorized  imposition,  to  which  they  did  not  give  even  the 
sanction  of  their  own  example.  Had  they  done  so,  it  would 
have  been  in  the  nature  of  self-imposed  penances,  and  could 
not  have  authorized  them  to  impose  them  on  others.  The  law, 
our  Lord  had  himself  on  various  occasions  explained  in  several 
important  particulars.  See  Matt.  v.  vi.  vii.  xv.  xix.  xxii. 
36 — 40 ;  xxiii.  16 — 22.  It  cannot  be  supposed  that  he  intended 
to  sanction  for  any  purpose,  or  to  any  extent,  or  for  any  time, 
the  gross  perversions  of  the  law  which  these  teachers  habitually 
and  systematically  made,  and  for  that  reason,  if  indeed  our 
Lord  referred  at  all  to  the  moral  parts  of  the  law,  the  direc- 


296  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

tions  given  in  the  first  clause  of  the  third  verse  must  be  under- 
stood of  the  law  rigidly  apprehended,  and  explained  as  he 
explained  it.  This  limitation,  however,  would  leave  but  little 
of  their  instructions  for  the  people  to  observe  and  do,  and 
hence  we  incline  to  the  interpretation,  that  our  Lord  intended 
only  the  ritual  or  ceremonial  parts  of  the  law,  the  observance 
of  which,  by  the  Jewish  nation,  was  to  be  permitted  while  the 
temple  stood.  In  this  sense,  and  to  this  extent,  their  com- 
mands might  be  observed  without  incurring  taint  from  their 
false  doctrines  touching  the  weightier  things  of  the  law,  judg- 
ment, mercy,  and  faith.     See  verse  23. 

Matt,  xxiii.  5 — 7.  "  But  all  their  works  they  do  for  to  be 
seen  of  men.  They  make  broad  their  phylacteries  and  enlarge 
the  borders  of  their  garments,  and  love  the  uppermost  rooms 
at  feasts,  and  the  chief  seats  in  the  synagogues,  and  greetings 
in  the  markets,  and  to  be  called  of  men.  Rabbi,  Rabbi." 

In  these  verses,  our  Lord  describes  the  ruling  passions  of 
these  teachers.  They  were  ostentatious  and  vainglorious. 
They  loved  and  sought  for  distinction  in  social  intercourse,  in 
their  religious  assemblies,  and  in  other  public  places,  and  every- 
where to  be  recognized  by  all  in  their  official  relations.  Had 
this  been  the  worst  that  could  be  said  of  them  they  were  unfit 
to  be  spiritual  shepherds;  and  none  who  heard  these  words 
could  fail  to  perceive  how  unworthy  the  Saviour  deemed  them 
of  the  distinctions  they  coveted. 

Matt,  xxiii.  8.  "But  be  not  ye  called  Rabbi  [my  master]: 
for  one  is  your  Master,  [the  master  of  you  all,]  Christ." 

It  should  be  remembered  that  our  Lord  did  not,  during  his 
personal  ministry,  publicly  assume  or  take  to  himself  the  title 
of  Christ.  This  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  when  arraigned 
before  the  High  Priest,  he  was  questioned  under  a  solemn 
adjuration  whether  he  was  the  Christ  or  not.  Matt.  xxvi.  63; 
Mark  xiv.  61;  Luke  xxii.  67;  see  John  x.  24.  So  far  from 
assuming  the  title,  he  solemnly  charged  his  disciples  to  tell  no 
mafi  that  he  was  the  Christ.  Matt.  xvi.  20 ;  see  notes  on  that 
verse  and  on  Matt.  xi.  3.  Nor  did  he  assume  it  on  this  occa- 
sion. But  what  he  said  amounted  to  the  assertion  that  Moses, 
in  whose  seat  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  sat,  was  no  longer  their 
master,  nor  they  his  disciples.  Consequently,  a  new  order  of 
things  had  commenced,  under  one  greater  than  Moses,  Acts 
iii.  22;  Deut.  xviii.  15,  18,  19,  whom  they  were  bound  to  obey; 
and  this,  notwithstanding  the  permitted  continuance  of  the 
Levitical  ritual,  and  the  qualified  command  he  had  just  given 
them  to  obey,  so  long  as  Providence  should  permit,  the  precepts 
of  those  who  sat  in  Moses'  seat.  The  command  he  had  given 
was  indeed  an  assertion  of  authority  which  none  but  the  Christ 


VAIN   DISTINCTIONS    PROHIBITED,  297 

could  exercise.  It  was,  in  fact,  an  extension  of  the  Levitical 
ritual;  and  of  the  authority  of  those  to  whom  the  administra- 
tion of  it  had  been  committed.  In  this  view  the  mere  assump- 
tion of  such  authority,  which  none  but  the  Christ  could  exercise, 
was  virtually  an  assumption  of  the  character  of  Christ.  Still, 
our  Lord  employs  the  title  without  any  direct  or  explicit  appli- 
cation of  it  to  himself,  and  it  is  evident  that  the  chief  priests 
and  the  rulers,  who  doubtless  were  informed  of  all  that  trans- 
pired on  this  occasion,  did  not  regard  it  such  an  assumption  of 
the  office  as  would  be  a  sufficient  foundation  for  a  public  accu- 
sation.    See  Luke  xxii.  67 ;  Mark  xiv.  61 ;  Matt.  xxvi.  63. 

Matt,  xxiii.  8 — 11.  "And  all  ye  are  brethren.  And  call 
no  man  father,  for  one  is  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven  [Iv 
To:^  o'jpavoc;,  omnipresent].  Neither  be  ye  called  masters;  for 
one  is  your  master,  Christ;  and  he  that  is  greatest  [literally, 
and  the  greatest  of  you]  shall  be  your  servant." 

Our  Lord  had  before  declared  this  law  of  his  kingdom  in  a 
private  conversation  with  the  twelve  apostles.  See  Matt.  xx. 
24 — 27.  Now  he  publicly  declares  it  in  the  temple  to  the 
people  and  all  his  disciples.  As  a  rule  of  conduct  it  was  the 
reverse  of  their  preconceived  opinions  of  honour  and  greatness, 
as  well  as  of  the  teachings  and  example  of  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees.  But  the  point  most  important  to  be  noticed  in  this 
connection,  is  the  bearing  it  has  upon  the  undefined  period 
of  respite  or  grace  which  was  still  allotted  to  the  nation. 
Although  their  temple  and  their  ceremonial  worship  would 
be  permitted  for  a  time,  and  until  God,  in  his  providence, 
should  otherwise  direct,  yet  essentially  a  new  order  of  things 
had  come.  The  prophet  whom  Moses  foretold  had  appeared, 
and  him  they  were  bound  to  obey.  Acts  iii.  22,  23;  Deut. 
xviii.  15,  18,  19.  The  authority  of  Moses,  the  great  lawgiver, 
and  of  the  laws  he  had  given  the  nation,  had  expired  by  their 
own  limitation.  Whatever  of  force  or  effect  their  institutions 
and  laws  could  have  thereafter,  could  come  only  from  a  re- 
enactment,  by  Christ,  under  such  modifications  as  he  should 
impose. 

In  this  consideration  we  perceive  the  ground  of  transition  in 
our  Lord's  discourse.  He  had  done  with  the  priests  and  elders. 
He  had  put  to  silence  the  Herodians,  Sadducees,  Scribes,  and 
Pharisees,  and  being  now  about  to  depart  from  the  temple,  which 
he  had  entered  as  his  own  house,  he  proclaims  with  authority, 
see  Matt.  vii.  29,  to  the  crowd  surrounding  him  and  the  whole 
company  of  his  disciples,  the  great  law  by  which  thenceforth  they 
were  bound  to  live.  "  Be  ye  not  called  Rabbi,  Leaders,  Guides. 
Call  no  one  on  earth  your  father."  Covet  not — receive  not 
vain  distinctions  from  your  fellows,  nor  comply  with  the  exac- 
38 


298  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

tions  of  those  who  demand  them.  Ye  are  all  brethren — equals 
before  God.  Sin  has  wrought  the  distinctions  which  hitherto 
men  have  established  among  themselves.  Henceforth  Christ  is 
your  only  Monarch,  and  God  the  Father  of  all  is  your  Father. 
In  the  kingdom  of  God  the  present  order  of  things  will  be 
reversed.  .  Your  greatest  honour  and  glory  will  be  to  serve 
each  other. 

When  we  consider  the  occasion  upon  which  these  precepts 
were  given,  and  the  tone  of  authority  with  which  they  were 
pronounced,  -we  cannot  doubt  that  the  Saviour  intended  -to 
abrogate  all  existing  and  hitherto  allowed  usages  under  the 
Levitical  economy,  inconsistent  with  the  kingdom  he  came  to 
establish.  The  social  state  which  would  be  produced  by  uni- 
versal and  perfect  obedience  to  these  precepts,  will,  we  doubt 
not,  be  realized  when  Israel  shall  be  restored  to  their  land  and 
to  the  favour  of  God,  and  the  new  covenant  written  in  their 
hearts,  according  to  the  prediction.  Jer.  xxxi.  31 — 34 ;  Heb. 
viii.  8—11. 

That  they  were  not  observed  by  the  nation  at  that  time,  nor 
have  been  in  any  of  the  ages  since,  is  not  an  objection  to  this 
view  of  the  passage.  Our  Lord  foresaw  that  until  the  Spirit 
should  be  poured  from  on  high,  his  will  would  be  disregarded, 
not  only  by  avowed  enemies,  but  by  many  who  professed  to  be 
his  disciples  and  followers.  It  was  none  the  less  proper,  how- 
ever, see  Matt.  v.  48,  for  him  to  proclaim  the  law  of  his  king- 
dom, and  to  annex  to  it  the  sanction  in  the  following  verse : 

Matt,  xxiii.  12.  "And  whosoever  shall  exalt  himself 
shall  be  abased,  and  he  that  shall  humble  himself  shall  be 
exalted." 

We  do  not  regard  these  words  as  merely  predictive,  as  we 
may  in  Luke  xiv.  11 ;  xviii.  14,  but  as  the  expression  of  the 
Saviour's  will  or  purpose.  They  are  words  of  legislation,  and 
strictly  and  properly  a  legislative  sanction,  in  the  technical 
sense.  It  has  been  observed  that  "  human  legislators  have 
for  the  most  part  chosen  to  make  the  sanction  of  their  laws 
rather  vindicatory  than  remuneratory,  or  to  consist  rather  in 
punishments  than  in  actual  particular  rewards."  This  sanction 
comprises  both  these  qualities.  It  is  aimed  directly  at  the  root 
of  the  evil — a  remarkable  characteristic,  which  can  seldom  be 
attained  in  human  legislation,  owing  to  the  imperfection  of  the 
executive  or  administrative  power  of  the  State.  Observe,  obe- 
dience to  these  precepts  is  the  appointed  way  to  secure  the 
very  end  which  the  disobedience  of  them  aims  to  attain.  Self- 
exaltation  is  a  breach  of  this  fundamental  law  of  the  kingdom. 
Its  appointed  punishment  is  degradation,  and  abasement  by  the 
power  of  Christ  the  King.    Self-humiliation  is  the  indispensable 


THE  AMBITIOUS  TO  BE  HUMBLED,  THE  LOWLY  EXALTED.     299 

qualification  for  the  service  of  Christ.  It  is  a  grace  which 
God  alone  can  give,  and  the  greater  the  humiliation  the  greater 
the  gift  of  grace,  and  the  greater  the  qualification  for  exalted 
service.  To  the  carnal  mind,  such  a  law  is  a  paradox,  being 
founded  upon  conditions  repugnant  to  the  innate  principles 
of  human  nature  as  it  now  is,  and  therefore  impossible  to 
unrenewed  men.  Indeed,  it  is  one  of  the  mysteries  of  the 
kingdom  of  God. 

It  has  been  remarked  that  these  precepts,  abating  the  penal 
portion  of  the  sanction,  are  substantially  the  same  as  our  Lord 
gave  to  the  twelve  apostles  on  a  former  occasion.  See  Matt. 
XX.  25 — 27,  and  notes.  It  should  now  be  added,  that  the 
sanction  is  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  difference  of  the  appli- 
cation. It  is,  indeed,  the  same  law  of  the  sa7ne  kingdom,  but 
addressed  to  different  orders  or  ranks,  or  conditions  of  the 
subjects  of  that  kingdom.  On  the  former  occasion,  our  Lord 
addressed  the  apostles  as  the  representatives  of  the  whole  body 
of  the  elect,  whom  he  will  receive  to  himself  at  his  coming,  and 
exalt  to  thrones,  as  kings  and  priests  under  him.  Their  sphere 
of  service  will  be  the  world  of  glory,  and  their  perfect  obedi- 
ence made  sure  by  their  union  to  him.  No  penal  sanction, 
therefore,  could  be  necessary,  in  respect  to  this  body  of  the 
redeemed.  But  in  the  repetition  of  this  law  to  the  multitudes, 
and  his  other  disciples,  he  had  respect  to  men  in  the  flesh,  dwell- 
ing on  the  earth — to  Israel  as  a  nation  whom  he  purposed  yet 
to  spare  for  a  little  space— to  his  Church  on  earth,  consisting, 
as  he  foresaw  it  would  consist,  of  a  mixed  multitude;  the  best 
portion  of  which,  during  this  dispensation,  would  be  imperfect. 
He  had  respect,  also,  as  we  suppose,  to  the  millennial  state  of 
the  world,  when  Israel  will  be  restored  as  a  people,  and  all  of 
them  made  righteous,  and  the  Gentiles  converted  to  God. 
Thus  applied,  the  sanctionary  clause  was  appropriate.  Indeed 
we  may  consider  the  enactment,  in  this  application  of  it,  as 
supplementary  to  the  two  great  commandments  of  the  law, 
which  he  had  just  before  declared,  in  answer  to  the  question  of 
the  lawyer.     See  Matt.  xxii.  37,  40,  and  notes. 

We  may  discern  here  another  link  in  the  chain  of  thought, 
which  pervades  the  whole  of  this  last  public  discourse  of  our 
Lord.  In  commenting  upon  his  question  to  the  Pharisees,  con- 
cerning the  Christ,  Matt.  xxii.  41—45,  it  was  suggested  that 
he  claimed  for  himself  the  same  love,  honour,  and  obedience  as 
are  due  to  God  the  Father.  In  these  verses  he  explicitly  de- 
clares that  while  God  the  Father  is  Father  of  all,  Christ,  the 
Son  of  Man,  is  the  Master  or  Monarch  of  all.  See  notes  on 
Matt  ix.  6,  and  xii.  8.  He  assumes  authority  over  the  laws 
and  institutions  established  by  the  hand  of  Moses;  and  as  the 


300  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTUKE. 

only  lawgiver  and  mediator  between  God  and  men,  on  the  one 
hand  continues  by  his  own  authority,  for  the  time  being,  the 
ceremonial  parts  of  their  worship ;  and  on  the  other,  promul- 
gates new  precepts  designed  to  effect  an  entire  change  of  their 
exterior  life,  and  bring  it  into  conformity  with  the  two  great 
commandments  of  the  law  affecting  their  inner  life.  Taken 
together,  they  form  the  code  of  the  laws  of  the  kingdom  of 
God,  distinguished  from  all  human  codes  alike  by  its  brevity 
and  perfectness.  It  is  the  outward  realization  of  these  laws, 
through  the  hearty  and  perfect  obedience  of  all,  which  the 
Saviour  taught  us  to  pray  for  in  the  prayer  he  indited  for  the 
apostles — "Thy  kingdom  come;  thy  will  be  done  on  earth  as  it 
is  in  heaven" — and  it  is  from  their  actual  realization  we  can 
most  easily  form  an  idea  of  the  social  state  of  men  on  earth, 
when  that  kingdom  shall  be  outwardly  established  under  the 
reign  of  Christ,  the  second  Adam,  the  Lord  from  heaven. 


CHAPTER     VIII. 

Christ  a  sign  to  the  Jews. — The  woe  to  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees. — The  Scribes 
and  Pharisees. — The  Apostrophe  to  Jerusalem. — Jerusalem  and  Judea  to  be 
desolated. — The  Q,uestion  of  the  Disciples  about  the  Temple. — Their  Question 
respecting  his  Coming. — The  meaning  of  the  End  of  the  Age. — False  Christs 
were  to  arise. — The  Gospel  to  be  preached  to  all. — Jerusalem's  respite. — Jeru- 
salem's desolation. — The  Distress  of  the  Nations. — The  Advent  of  the  Son  of 
Man. — The  Judgment  of  the  Nations. — Christ's  Kingdom. 

Matthew  xxiii.  13 — 36.  Our  Lord's  purpose  in  this  address 
to  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  it  is  probable,  was  twofold:  to 
warn  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  themselves  of  their  perilous 
condition,  and  to  portray  in  the  hearing  of  the  people,  the  true 
character  of  those  whose  authority,  as  the  occupiers  of  the  seat 
of  Moses,  he  had  just  before  recognized  and  prolonged.  The 
latter,  however,  we  may  regard  as  the  chief  purpose;  for  he  had 
already  in  a  less  public  manner  said  to  the  Scribes  and  Phari- 
sees nearly  the  same  things.  Luke  xi.  37 — 54.  On  that  occa- 
sion his  language  provoked  a  vehement  attack  upon  him,  which 
he  did  not  see  proper  to  prevent.  But  now  he  allowed  no  gain- 
saying. Matt.  xxii.  46.  He  stood  in  his  own  temple.  They 
were  his  last  words  of  warning  to  them  and  to  the  people,  and 
fell  upon  their  minds  with  amazing  power.  We  cannot  err  in 
believing  that  no  words  were  ever  uttered  by  man  with  so  much 
majesty  and  awe-striking  effect. 

But  why,  it  may  be  inquired,  did  our  Lord  recognize  and 
prolong  the  authority  of  such  teachers,  for  any  purpose,  even 


CHRIST  A   SIGN  TO   THE   JEWS.  301 

for  a  moment  ?  They  were  dissemblers,  perverters  rather  than 
faithful  expounders  of  the  law,  blind  guides,  filled  with  hypoc- 
risy and  iniquity,  children  of  hell,  verse  15,  from  which  they 
could  not  escape  but  by  miracles  of  grace,  verse  33.  This 
question  touches  a  grave  difficulty,  the  solution  of  which  is  to 
be  sought  for,  as  we  conceive,  in  the  mysteries  of  Providence, 
or  more  precisely,  in  the  scheme  of  the  Divine  administration 
towards  Israel  as  the  elect  people.  Secularized  and  corrupt  as 
the  nation  had  become,  and  especially  its  rulers  and  teachers, 
it  was  God's  purpose  to  make  a  still  further  trial  of  it  under 
the  dispensation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  our  Lord  obscurely 
intimated  in  his  reply  to  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  when 
they  desired  him  to  show  them  a  sign  from  heaven.  See  notes 
on  Matt.  xii.  38,  and  xvi.  1—4.  On  another  occasion  he  made 
the  same  intimation  more  publicly,  as  we  learn  from  Luke 
xi.  29,  30,  to  which,  as  in  some  respects  more  explicit,  we  will 
turn.  It  may  be  paraphrased  thus:  "This  is  an  evil  genera- 
tion"— a  wicked  race — "they  seek  a  sign,  and  there  shall  no 
sign  be  given  to  it" — more  than  they  already  have  in  my  mira- 
culous works — "but  the  sign  of  Jonas  the  prophet.  For  as 
Jonas"  (after  being  preserved  three  days  and  three  nights  in 
the  body  of  the  fish,  and  his  wonderful  deliverance  therefrom) 
"was  a  sign  unto  the  Ninevites,"  during  forty  days,  Jonah 
i.  17;  iii.  4,  "so  shall  the  Son  of  Man"  (after  being  preserved 
three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  grave,  and  his  wonderful 
deliverance  therefrom)  "be  a  sign,"  during  forty  years,  unto 
this  generation.* 

The  personal  history  of  Jonah  considered  as  a  type  of  our 
Lord's  burial  in  the  grave  of  Joseph,  begins  to  be  applicable 
at  his  resurrection.  The  deliverance  of  Jonah,  which  we  doubt 
not  was  well  known  to  the  Ninevites,  stamped  his  mission  with 
Divine  authority,  and  the  deliverance  of  our  Lord's  body  from 
the  power  of  death  and  the  grave,  represented  by  the  preser- 
vation of  Jonah,  was  that  further  sign,  which  he  foretold  they 
should  have.  This  sign  or  further  proof,  the  apostles  preached 
with  great  power.  Acts  i.  22 ;  ii.  31 ;  iv.  33  ;  vii.  56,  to  that  peo- 
ple during  nearly  forty  years — God  confirming  their  testimony 
by  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  mighty  works 
they  performed.  Thus  considered,  this  was  the  greatest  of  the 
signs  given  to  the  nation.     It  was  a  permanent  or  continuing 

*  The  forty  days'  respite  in  the  case  of  Nineveh,  Jonah  iii.  4,  it  is  supposed, 
typically  or  mystically  represented  the  years  of  respite  which  were  to  be 
allowed  to  Jerusalem  after  our  Lord's  resurrection,  or  perhaps  we  should  say 
after  the  commencement  of  our  Lord's  public  ministry;  inasmuch  as  the  forty 
days,  in  the  case  of  Nineveh,  commenced  with  the  beginning  of  Jonah'3 
preacliing. 


302  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

sign,  during  the  remainder  of  their  national  existence,  and  in 
this  respect  diflFered  from  the  miracles  which  our  Lord  had 
previously  performed. 

However  this  may  be,  the  event  shows  that  God  intended  to 
spare  the  nation,  such  as  it  was,  and  its  teachers  and  rulers, 
depraved  and  wicked  as  they  were,  a  little  longer ;  peradven- 
ture  they  would  yet  repent,  when  they  should  have  the  further 
sign  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  proved  to  them  by  evidence 
which  they  could  not  doubt,  and  preached  to  them  and  con- 
firmed by  signs  and  wonders  wrought  by  the  apostles.  It  was 
in  the  execution  of  this  purpose,  as  we  suppose,  our  Lord 
recognized  and  prolonged  the  authority  of  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees,  not  for  any  good  thing  he  saw  either  in  the  nation 
or  in  its  teachers  or  rulers.  We  add  a  few  observations  upon 
some  of  these  verses. 

Matt,  xxiii.  13.  "But  woe  unto  you  Scribes  and  Pharisees, 
hypocrites !  for  ye  shut  up  the  kingdom  of  heaven  against  men ; 
for  ye  neither  go  in  yourselves,  neither  suffer  ye  them  that  are 
entering  to  go  in." 

This  was  the  characteristic  sin  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees. 
They  lived  in  times  the  like  of  which  had  never  been  before. 
The  kingdom  of  God  had  been  brought  nigh.  Matt  xi.  13.  See 
notes,  and  Luke  xvi.  16.  Their  privileges  and  responsibilities 
were  greater  than  those  of  their  predecessors.  Matt.  xiii.  17 ; 
Luke  X.  24.  It  was  for  this  reason,  we  suppose,  our  Lord 
began  his  enumeration  of  their  enormous  sins  with  this.  Not 
content  with  resisting  for  themselves  the  most  conclusive  evi- 
dence of  the  Divine  authority  of  John  the  Baptist's  mission, 
and  of  his  own,  they  were  unceasingly  malicious  and  persever- 
ingly  active  in  perverting  it.  They  took  away  the  key  of 
(or  rather  say  to)  knowledge  from  the  people,  Luke  xi.  62,  thus 
closing  or  barring  up  the  door,  as  far  as  it  was  in  their  power, 
to  all  who  otherwise  might  have  been  inclined  to  enter  the 
kingdom.  See  Matt.  xi.  18,  19;  xii.  24;  Luke  vii.  29,  30,  33, 
34;  also,  John  vii.  20;  viii.  48,  49,  52;  x.  20. 

Matt,  xxiii.  14.  "But  woe  to  you.  Scribes  and  Pharisees, 
hypocrites !  for  ye  [xareadcere  greedily  eat  up]  devour  widows* 
houses,  and  for  [jTpoipaazc  a  show  or  pretext  to  cover  up  your 
real  intent]  a  pretence  [pray  long^]  make  long  prayer ;  there- 
fore [oca  zouTO  on  account  of  this  pretext,]  ye  shall  receive 
[more  abundant,  severer]  greater  [condemnation]  damnation." 

Avarice,  which  did  not  spare  -the  poor  and  unprotected — 
merciless  avarice,  was  another  of  their  enormous  sins.  Prac- 
tised, as  it  was  by  them,  under  pretence  of  religion,  and  cov- 
ered up  by  hypocritical  prayers,  it  may  be  regarded  as  a  kind 
of  form  of  that  vice  which  was  peculiar  to  their  caste  or  class, 


,      THE   WOE   TO   THE   SCRIBES   AND   PHARISEES.  303 

as  spiritual  guides.  It  was  their  character  and  office  which 
gave  them  access  to  their  victims.  The  apostle  Paul  warned 
Timothy,  1  Tim.  vi.  5,  against  some  in  the  church,  even  in  his 
day,  who  regarded  religion  as  a  thing  valuable  only  so  far  as  it 
might  be  made  subservient  to  lucre,  see  2  Peter  ii.  1,  and  the 
history  of  the  Church,  in  all  ages  since,  shows  an  uninterrupted 
succession  of  such  teachers  from  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees, 
whom  the  Lord  thus  severely  condemned. 

Matt,  xxiii,  15 — 31.  These  verses  cannot  be  made  plainer 
by  any  comment. 

They  show  how  zealous  these  men  were  in  propagating  their 
(so  called)  religious  scheme  of  doctrines,  supported  by  the  most 
absurd  interpretations  of  the  Scriptures,  and  how  little  influ- 
ence their  religious  opinions  had  upon  their  moral  and  religious 
character.  Punctilious  as  they  were  in  the  observation  of 
small  things,  and  imposing  and  beautiful  as  their  exterior  life 
appeared,  they  were,  within,  like  sepulchres,  full  of  rottenness 
and  all  uncleanness.  Under  pretext  of  being  more  holy  than 
their  fathers,  and  vainly  disavowing  their  deeds,  they  were 
treading  closely  in  their  footsteps;  and  were  at  that  moment 
meditating  the  commission  of  the  most  heaven-daring  of  the 
nation's  crimes.  Well  knowing  their  character  and  their  pur- 
poses, the  Lord  added: 

Matt,  xxiii,  32.  "Fill  ye  up  then  the  measure  of  your 
fathers."  Fill  ye  up,  then,  to  the  full,  the  measure  of  the 
Divine  forbearance  towards  your  nation,  which  your  fathers,  in 
all  their  generations,  have  been  filling. 

This  verse  is  to  be  regarded  as  permissive  and  predictive,  not 
as  an  exhortation  or  command.  As  if  the  Saviour  had  said: 
"  Seeing  you  are  inflexibly  bent  upon  putting  me  to  death,  and 
thus  putting  an  end  to  your  own  existence  as  a  nation,  by  the 
most  atrocious  of  your  sins,  God  will  permit  you  to  have  your 
own  way.  But  how,  then,  will  it  be  possible  for  you  to  escape 
the  severest  punishment?" 

The  permission  thus  given  to  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  and 
through  them  to  the  nation  itself,  was  indispensable  to  the 
accomplishment  of  their  purpose  of  putting  him  to  death.  No 
one,  not  the  whole  nation,  not  Satan  himself,  nor  all  together, 
had  power  to  take  the  life  of  the  Lord  against  his  will,  or 
without  his  permission.  John  x.  18,  The  time,  the  place,  and 
the  occasion,  concur  to  show  that  these  words  should  be  under- 
stood in  this  sense.  They  may  remind  us  of  the  like,permission 
soon  afterwards  given  to  Satan,  as  soon  as  he  had  taken  corpo- 
real possession  of  Judas  Iscariot.  John.  xiii.  27. 

Matt,  xxiii.  33.  "Ye  serpents,  ye  generation  of  vipers, 
how  can  ye  escape  the  damnation  of  hell?" 


304  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

The  Saviour  docs  not  positively  affirm  that  hell  was  their 
destination,  and  damnation  their  doom:  for  with  God  all  things 
are  possible;  but,  considered  as  a  question,  what  other  answer 
could  they  return  to  it?  Yet,  notwithstanding  their  extreme 
wickedness,  they  were  to  be  spared,  and  borne  with  a  little 
longer,  and  still  further  trial  given  them,  as  we  have  seen,  in 
order  that  they  might  repent  and  believe,  or  display  more  fully 
their  character,  and  the  justice  of  God  in  their  punishment. 
See  Rom.  ix.  17.  The  event  of  this  further  trial  the  Saviour 
foresaw  and  foretold,  for  the  warning  of  such  as  would  give 
heed  to  it. 

Matt,  xxiii.  34 — 36,  "Wherefore,  [referring  to  what  he 
had  said  in  verses  32,  33]  behold,  I  send  you  [meaning,  I 
will  send  you,  after  my  resurrection]  prophets,  and  wise  men, 
and  scribes,  and  some  of  them  ye  shall  [will]  kill  and  crucify, 
and  some  of  them  shall  ye  [ye  will]  scourge  in  your  synagogues, 
and  persecute  from  city  to  city;  that  upon  you  may  come  all 
the  righteous  blood  shed  upon  the  earth,  from  the  blood  of 
righteous  Abel  to  the  blood  of  Zacharias,  the  son  of  Barachias, 
whom  ye  slew  between  the  temple  and  the  altar.  Verily,  I  say 
unto  you.  All  these  things  shall  [will]  come  upon  this  gen- 
eration." 

These  words,  as  already  intimated,  were  a  prediction  of  the 
issue  of  the  trial  of  the  nation,  under  the  dispensation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  As  that  dispensation  was  still  future,  the  official 
titles  or  names  afterwards  given  to  those  by  whose  agency  it 
was  carried  on,  would  not  have  been  understood,  if  the  Saviour 
had  employed  them.  Hence  he  adopted  from  the  synagogue, 
those  most  analogous  to  the  prospective  institutions  of  the 
Gospel,  as  best  adapted  to  convey  his  meaning ;  intending  by 
"prophets,  wise  men,  and  scribes,"  the  apOstles  and  other  min- 
isters of  the  word,  whom  he  soon  after  sent  forth  to  preach  the 
gospel  to  the  nation;  who  laboured  in  the  midst  of  them,  till 
Jerusalem  was  destroyed,  and  the  people  dispersed  by  the 
Romans.  The  cruel  treatment  which  he  foretold  they  would 
receive,  he  had  before  predicted  in  the  parable  of  the  marriage, 
Matt.  xxii.  6;  see  xxiv.  9;  John  xv.  20;  xvi.  2,  and  Paul 
refers  to  it  as  an  historical  fact  in  his  first  Epistle  to  the  Thes- 
salonians,  ii.  14 — 17,  written,  it  is  supposed,  about  nineteen 
years  after  this  time.  And  if  minute  accounts  of  the  persecu- 
tions of  Christians  during  this  last  period  of  the  Jewish  State 
had  been  .transmitted  to  us,  we  doubt  not  they  would  most 
abundantly  verify  this  prediction  of  the  Saviour  in  all  its  par- 
ticulars.   See  notes  on  Matt,  xii.  43 — 45. 

But  what  is  especially  noticeable  in  this  last  denunciation  is, 
that  our  Lord  regards  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  both  as  indi- 


THE   SCRIBES   AND    PHARISEES.  305 

viflnals  and  as  the  representatives  of  the  nation  from  its  origin. 
Being  the  elect  nation  under  the  covenant,  the  people  were  dealt 
with  as  a  corporate  person,  identically  one  and  the  same  in  all 
their  generations.  In  this  character  and  capacity,  the  privileges 
of  the  kingdom  had  been  covenanted  to  the  nation,  and  when  for- 
feited, they  were  taken  a^vay  from  it  as  such.  Upon  the  same 
principle,  the  guilt  which  former  generations  had  incurred  and 
accumulated  was  to  be  charged  to  the  account  of  the  last.  The 
punishment  which  the  Divine  justice  inflicted  for  the  nation's 
sins  thus  considered,  besides  the  national  loss  of  the  covenanted 
blessings,  was  the  utter  ruin  of  their  commonwealth,  and  the 
subjection  of  the  people  to  the  power  of  the  Gentiles:  in  other 
words,  temporal  judgments;  which  only,  the  nation  as  such  could 
suffer.  But  these  included  particular  inflictions  upon  the  peo- 
ple individually,  more  or  less  intense  respectively,  according  to 
their  ill-desert.  This  no  doubt  was  very  various,  yet  in  none 
so  great,  that  the  punishment  due  to  it  could  not  be  averted  by 
repentance  towards  God  and  faith  in  their  rejected  Messiah. 
Many  of  the  priests,  as  we  learn  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
vi.  7,  though  they  had  been  zealous  and  active  enemies  of  Jesus, 
during  his  public  ministry,  afterwards  became  obedient  to  the 
faith;  and  the  Pharisee,  Saul  of  Tarsus,  though  he  took  an 
active  part  in  fulfilling  the  prophecy,  Acts  vii.  58 ;  viii.  1 ; 
xxvi.  10,  11 ;  1  Tim.  i.  15,  16,  is  another  example  of  the  Divine 
clemency.  That  there  was  among  this  corrupt  people  an  elec- 
tion of  grace  is  proved  by  many  places,  Rom.  xi.  4,  5;  Acts 
xxi.  20,  and  it  was  no  doubt  in  part  for  the  sake  of  gathering 
these  that  the  days  of  vengeance  were  postponed.  See  2  Pet. 
iii.  9.     But  to  return  to  the  principal  point  of  this  passage. 

Our  Lord  charged  the  nation  not  only  with  the  blood  of  their 
own  prophets,  but  with  the  guilt  of  all  the  righteous  blood  shed 
upon  the  earth  from  the  blood  of  righteous  Abel.  In  what 
sense,  it  may  be  ini^uired,  could  the  nation  be  charged  with 
crimes  which  neither  they  nor  their  fathers,  from  the  time  they 
were  chosen  as  the  elect  nation,  had  committed?  Mr.  Alford 
remarks,  "that  the  murder  of  Abel  was  the  first  in  the  strife 
between  unrighteousness  and  holiness;  and  as  the  Jews  now 
represent  the  murderers  of  the  first,  they  must  bear  the  ven- 
geance of  the  whole  in  God's  day  of  wrath."  Without  contro- 
verting the  views  of  learned  men  upon  obscure  questions,  the 
writer  may  be  allowed  to  suggest,  that  the  ground  or  cause  of 
the  nation's  guilt  for  crimes  committed  from  the  beginning  of 
the  world,  is  to  be  sought  for,  in  their  relation,  as  a  people,  to 
the  scheme  of  redemption.  In  God's  purpose,  the  day  of  final 
retribution  for  the  sins  of  the  world,  for  the  removal  of  the 
curse  and  the  restitution  of  all  things,  is  inseparably  connected 


306  NOTES   ON    SCRIPTURE. 

with  the  advent  and  kingdom  of  Christ;  and  the  time  had  now 
come  for  the  accomplishment  of  tliese  events.  Nothing  was 
wanting  on  the  part  of  God,  and  nothing  was  required  of  that 
generation,  but  the  hearty  reception  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  as  their 
Messiah,  with  the  obedience  of  faith.  By  rejecting  him,  they 
postponed,  so  to  speak,  the  execution  of  the  Divine  plan.  In 
other  words,  instrumentally  they  prolonged  the  curse,  and  put 
off  the  day  of  God's  righteous  retribution  of  all  the  sins  com- 
mitted since  the  fall,  and  consequently  were  themselves  respon- 
sible as  a  nation,  for  the  guilt  of  sins  which,  but  for  them,  would 
at  that  time  have  been  avenged :  for  as  a  nation,  they  were  a 
party  to  the  covenant  at  Horeb,  and  as  subjects  of  the  law, 
which  was  declaratory  of  the  conditions  to  be  fulfilled  by  the 
people  on  their  part,  they  were  bound  by  its  terms,  and  respon- 
sible for  all  the  consequences  of  the  breach  thereof,  one  of 
which  was,  as  we  have  seen,  the  postponement  of  the  day  of 
retribution.  This  reasoning  is  analogous  to  that  employed  in 
the  notes  on  Matt.  ii.  17,  18,  and  Jer.  xxxi.  15,  to  Avhich  the 
reader  is  referred. 

It  cannot  be  necessary  to  add,  that  the  actual  issues  or 
events  of  God's  covenant  with  Israel  were  foreseen.  Acts  xv. 
19.  They  were  not  only  foreseen,  but  actually  provided  for 
in  the  scheme  of  redemption,  which  included  all  possible  issues 
of  each  and  every  of  its  subordinate  parts. 

Having  now  done  with  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  our  Lord 
closed  his  public  ministry  by  an  address  to  the  nation.  To 
enter  at  all  into  his  conceptions  the  reader  must  consider  with 
profound  attention  the  time,  the  place,  the  occasion,  the  people 
addressed,  their  history,  their  relations  to  God  by  covenant, 
the  consequences  of  their  sinful  rejection  of  the  Lord  Jesus  to 
themselves  as  a  nation  and  a  race,  and  to  the  world.  We  call 
it  an  apostrophe,  and  such  it  is.  But  so  vast  are  the  thoughts 
it  expresses,  so  deep  the  emotions  which  prompted  them,  so 
comprehensive  the  appeal,  and  in  all  these  respects,  so  far 
above  the  conceptions  of  the  actual  audience,  that  we  may  with 
equal  propriety  regard  it  as  a  Divine  soliloquy,  or  the  Lord's 
declaration  to  himself  of  his  own  faithfulness  to  his  covenant 
engagements,  and  of  his  reason  for  withdrawing  the  special 
care  and  providence  he  had  hitherto  extended  to  the  nation. 
Let  us  attend  to  some  of  the  particulars. 

Matt,  xxiii.  37.  "0  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem." 

Many  great  and  glorious  purposes  are  connected  with  Jeru- 
salem. The  Saviour  himself  called  it  the  city  of  the  great 
King,  Matt.  v.  35;  see  Ps.  xlviii.  2.  God  himself  had  chosen 
it,  1  Kings  xi.  13,  and  resolved  to  establish  it,  1  Kings  xv.  4, 
and  will   dwell   in   the   midst  of   it,    Zechariah   viii.    3,    and 


THE   APOSTROPHE   TO   JERUSALEM.  307 

make  it  a  rejoicing,  and  a  joy  to  the  wliole  earth,  Isaiah 
Ixv.  18,  19.  This  purpose  he  will  never  abandon  or  change, 
Zechariah  i.  17;  ii.  12.  That  a  city  of  such  exalted  privi- 
leges, and  so  glorious  a  destiny,  should  madly  cast  them  all 
away,  or  even  momentarily  disregard  them,  was  a  matter  of 
profound  astonishment  and  grief.  This  is  intimated  by  the  repe- 
tition. It  is  more  to  our  purpose,  however,  to  observe,  that 
under  this  name,  the  Saviour  summons  the  whole  nation,  in  all 
its  generations,  living  and  dead,  before  him,  to  hear  these,  his 
last  words,  as  if  he  had  said :  "  0  my  people,  my  people — my 
people  by  choice  and  covenant — how  often  would  I  have  gath- 
ered you,"  &c. 

Matt,  xxeii.  37.  "That  killest  the  prophets  and  stonest 
them  that  are  sent  unto  thee."  See  Isa.  iv.  4;  Luke  xiii. 
33,  34. 

Plainly,  our  Lord  refers,  by  these  words,  to  former  genera- 
tions of  the  nation,  and  his  dealings  with  them,  from  the 
beginning;  not  merely  to  events  which  had  occurred  during  his 
advent  and  appearing  in  the  flesh.  We  know  not  that  any  pro- 
phet had  been  killed  during  our  Lord's  personal  ministry  except 
John  the  Baptist,  whom  Herod  killed.  But  what  is  especially 
noticeable  is,  that  our  Lord  characterizes  this  highly  favoured 
city  only  by  its  heaven-daring  crimes.  The  prophets  were 
God's  ambassadors.  But  had  they  been  only  the  ambassadors 
of  an  earthly  king,  they  should  have  been  received  with  honour, 
and  their  persons  regarded  as  sacred. 

An  earthly  king  would  have  avenged,  to  the  extent  of  his 
power,  the  dishonour  done  him  by  such  flagrant  wrongs  done 
to  his  servants ;  but  God  had  not  only  forborne  to  exterminate 
the  nation,  for  repeated  off"ences,  but  even  preserved  and  pro- 
tected it  until  at  length  he  sent  his  Son,  saying,  according 
to  the  representation  of  the  parable:  "They  will  reverence 
my  Son."  Matt.  xxi.  37,  and  notes.  Thus  our  Lord  enhances 
the  eff"ect  of  the  appeal,  by  contrasting  the  goodness  and  for- 
bearance of  God  with  the  ingratitude  and  crimes  of  the  nation. 

Matt,  xxiii.  37.  "How  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy 
children  together  even  as  a  hen  [bird]  gathereth  her  chickens 
[nestlings,]  under  her  wings,  and  ye  would  not." 

Our  Lord  spoke  these  words  in  the  majesty  of  his  pre- 
existent  nature,  1  Cor.  x.  9.  They  imply  that  he  had  ever 
been  with  the  nation,  and  watchful  over  it,  and  ever  ready  to 
gather  its  scattered  and  oppressed  children  from  under  the 
power  of  their  enemies,  and  foster  and  protect  them  with  the 
most  tender  and  aff"ectionate  care.  See  Ps.  Ixxxi.  13 — 16. 
How  strangely  these  words  must  have  sounded  in  the  ears  of 
the    Scribes   and   Pharisees,  who  regarded   him   merely  as  a 


308  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

mortal  man,  like  themselves.  See  Jolm  viii.  58,  59,  and  56,  57. 
In  uttering  them  he  had  no  special  regard  to  his  audience,  but 
rather  to  his  own  greatness  and  glory,  and  the  Divine  scheme 
into  which  the  election  of  Israel  entered  and  formed  an  im- 
portant part.  The  temporary  failure,  or  perhaps  we  should 
say,  the  postponement,  of  the  glorious  consummation  of  this 
scheme,  was  not  his  fault,  but  theirs.  They  would  not  be 
gathered  and  blest  by  him.  They  had  reached  the  outermost 
limits  of  the  Divine  forbearance,  and  would  soon  pass  beyond 
them.  With  prophetic  words,  he  therefore  adds  the  sentence 
of  the  divine  judgment  for  their  national  sins: 

Matt,  xxiii.  38.  "Behold,  your  house  is  left  unto  you 
desolate." 

As  if  he  had  said:  "Behold,  the  land  which  God  covenanted 
to  your  fathers,  to  be  your  dwelling-place  in  all  your  genera- 
tions, is  abandoned  of  God.  His  special  care  and  providence 
over  it  are  withdrawn.  It  is  left  to  yourselves  to  keep  and 
protect  as  best  you  can.     Soon  it  will  be  desolate. 

The  strength  of  the  nation  never  consisted  in  its  numbers. 
Moses  taught  the  people,  Deut.  vii.  7,  that  the  Lord  did  not 
choose  them  because  they  were  more  in  number  than  any  peo- 
ple; for  they  were  the  fewest  of  all  people.  Ps.  cv.  12.  Their 
strength  and  safety  lay  in  the  covenanted  care  and  the  special 
providence  of  God,  as  their  whole  history  abundantly  proves, 
Deut.  iii.  22;  xx.  4;  xxxii.  30;  Exod.  xiv.  14;  Lev.  xxvi.  8; 
Josh,  xxiii.  10 ;  Ps.  xxxv.  1 ;  xliv.  4,  5,  and  that  care  and  provi- 
dence had  been  extended  to  them,  during  all  their  diversified 
fortunes,  until  this  time.  He  was  their  King;  and  although  in 
the  days  of  Samuel  they  demanded  another  king  to  rule  them, 
like  all  the  nations,  1  Sam.  viii.  5,  9,  yet  he  continued  his 
theocratical  rule  over  them  through  the  kings  he  gave  them, 
and  even  covenanted  with  David  that  his  own  Anointed  should 
descend  from  his  loins.  Acts  ii.  30;  Ps.  cxxxii.  11.  By  the 
words  we  are  now  considering,  the  Theocracy  was  virtually, 
and  even  formally,  withdrawn.  The  consequences  of  this 
change  in  their  relations  were  foreshadowed  by  the  word  "deso- 
late," but  plainly  declared,  soon  afterwards,  to  four  of  the 
disciples,  in  his  prophetical  discourse  upon  the  Mount  of 
Olives. 

Matt,  xxiii.  39.  "For  I  say  unto  you,  ye  shall  not  see  me 
henceforth  till  ye  say,  Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord." 

We  regard  "this  verse  as  a  part  of  the  apostrophe  to  the 
nation,  as  before  explained,  not  as  addressed  especially  to  the 
auditory  actually  present  in  the  temple.  They  import  the 
excision  of  tlie  nation  from  the  high  privileges  of  the  covenant 


RETURN   OF  THE   DIVINE   FAVOUR.  309 

they  liad  forfeited ;  yet  without  extinguishing  the  hope  of  the 
inferior  blessings  of  an  earthly  pre-eminence  among  the  nations 
in  the  world  to  come  under  Messiah's  reign.  See  notes  on  Matt, 
xxi.  43,  44.     But  to  come  to  particulars. 

Our  Lord  connects  the  desolation  he  had  just  before  spoken 
of,  with  his  withdrawal  from  the  nation  as  their  Messiah  and 
covenanted  King.  They  imply,  that  he  will  not  appear  to 
them  again  to  be  rejected ;  that  is  to  say,  his  withdraAval  from 
the  nation,  and  the  consequent  desolation  of  their  land,  shall 
continue  as  long  as  their  unbelief  and  disobedience.  They 
imply  also  that  when  their  unbelief  and  disobedience  as  a 
nation  shall  cease,  and  their  hearts  be  prepared  to  receive  him, 
then  he  will  appear  to  them  again;  extend  his  care  and  pro- 
tection to  them,  and  repair  their  desolations.  If  we  now  turn 
to  Acts  XV.  16,  we  shall  find,  not  the  times  and  seasons,  but  the 
event  upon  which  the  return  of  the  Divine  favour  is  made  to 
depend.  It  will  be  when  the  visitation  of  the  Gentiles  is  over, 
and  God  has  taken  out  of  them  a  people  for  his  name — in 
other  words,  it  will  be  after  the  closing  of  the  present  dispensa- 
tion of  the  Gospel  among  all  nations.  But  then  will  that  king- 
dom of  priests,  covenanted  to  Israel  at  Horeb,  into  which  both 
Jews  and  Gentiles  may  now  enter,  be  completely  formed,  and 
nothing  will  remain  for  Israel  according  to  the  flesh,  but  the 
glories  of  the  earthly  kingdom  which  their  fathers  coveted. 
We  add,  it  is  plain  from  other  Scriptures,  see  Heb.  ix.  28; 
Zech.  xii.,  that  the  Lord  will  never  again  appear  to  an}^  gene- 
ration of  the  nation  in  the  humble  garb  of  human  flesh,  but 
only  in  his  glory  as  the  Son  of  Man  for  the  judging  and  ruling 
of  all  the  kindreds  and  nations  of  the  earth.  Matt.  xxv.  31. 
Of  this  event,  restored  Israel  may  have  a  sign  which  will  not 
be  given  to  other  nations.     Matt.  iv.  5,  6. 

Matt.  xxiv.  1.  "  And  Jesus  went  out,  and  departed  from 
the  temple  [and  Jesus,  coming  out  of  the  temple,  Avas  going 
away  from  it,]  and  his  disciples  came  to  him  for  to  show  him 
the  buildings  of  the  temple,"  [when  his  disciples  came  up  to 
point  out  to  him  its  structures  and  magnificence.  Mark  xiii.  1; 
Luke  xxi.  5.] 

The  disciples  were  Galileans,  and  probably  much  less  familiar 
with  the  temple  than  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem.  On  this 
account,  perhaps,  they  were  more  sensibly  struck  Avith  its 
beauty  and  grandeur.  Thinking  that  their  Master  would  share 
in  their  admiration,  they  desired  to  detain  him  while  they 
could  survey  it  together.  But  whatever  may  have  been  the 
motives  of  the  disciples,  the  fact  shows  how  little  they  under- 
stood our  Lord's  nature.  As  in  their  previous  intercourse  with 
him,  they  seem  to  have  regarded  him  on  this  occasion  also,  as 


310  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

a  man,  like  themselves,  in  all  the  essentials  of  his  nature,  not 
as  one  to  whom  all  the  glories  of  the  universe  were  familiarly 
knoAvn.  But  the  special  design  of  this  verse  is,  as  we  suppose, 
to  introduce  our  Lord's  reply. 

Matt.  xxiv.  2.  "And  Jesus  said  unto  them,  See  ye  not  all 
these  things?  [are  ye  looking  at  these  things?]  Verily,  I 
say  unto  you.  There  shall  not  be  left  here  one  stone  upon 
another,  that  shall  not  be  thrown  down." — "The  days  will 
come  in  which  there  shall  not  be  left  one  stone  upon  another 
that  shall  not  be  thrown  down."  Luke  xxi.  6. 

We  are  not  informed  that  the  Saviour  halted,  as  the  disciples 
evidently  desired  he  should ;  but  we  may  suppose  at  least  that 
he  momentarily  turned,  and  extending  his  hands  towards  the 
temple,  as  if  to  demonstrate  the  meaning  of  his  words,  pro- 
nounced the  startling  prediction  in  the  text.  It  was  new  to 
them ;  he  had  given  no  intimation  of  the  kind  before  in  public, 
or  even  in  his  private  intercourse  with  them.  Yet  they 
believed  it.  Their  confidence  in  him  was  implicit,  as  the  next 
verse  shows.  But  how,  by  what  means,  and  when?  They 
presumed  not  to  ask  him.  The  prediction,  they  well  knew, 
would  be  regarded  as  criminal,  not  to  say  blasphemous,  by 
their  countrymen.  Acts  vi.  13,  14;  Matt.  xxvi.  61;  xxvii.  40; 
Mark  xiv.  58.  If  it  were  generally  known,  it  would  expose 
their  Master  to  great  personal  danger.  It  was,  therefore,  a 
matter  not  to  be  much  spoken  of,  even  among  themselves,  and 
never  except  in  the  most  confidential  way.  With  such  im- 
pressions, they  pursued  their  accustomed  way  from  the  temple 
to  the  Mount  of  Olives,  in  silence,  as  the  Evangelists  allow  us 
to  suppose.     But  afterwards. 

Matt.  xxiv.  3.  "As  he  sat  upon  the  Mount  of  Olives,  the 
disciples  [four  of  the  disciples,  Peter,  James,  John,  and 
Andrew — Mark  xiii.  3,]  came  unto  him  privately  saying,  Tell 
us  [confidentially]  when  shall  these  things  be?  and  what  the 
sign  of  thy  coming,  and  of  the  end  of  the  world?"  [arwvoc.] 

The  fact  that  only  four  of  the  disciples,  so  far  as  we  know, 
ventured  to  broach  the  subject  of  this  prediction  to  the  Saviour, 
and  then  only  in  a  private  or  confidential  Avay,  shows  that  for 
some  reason,  if  not  that  before  suggested,  the  disciples  thought 
it  improper  to  question  him  publicly  about  the  prediction,  or 
even  before  the  whole  company  of  the  disciples.  But  waiving 
further  observations  on  this  point,  we  proceed  to  the  particulars 
upon  which, these  disciples  desired  information.  To  ascertain 
these,  we  must  determine  the  sense  in  which  they  themselves 
understood,  and  put  their  questions;  and  it  is  important  to  do 
so.  Our  Lord  knew  their  meaning,  and  it  is  reasonable  to 
suppose,  he  responded  to  it,  so  far  as  the  information  called  for 


THE   disciples'    INQUIRIES    OF    CHRIST.  311 

was  proper  to  be  given.  If  this  assumption  be  allowed,  the 
sense  in  which  the  questions  were  understood  by  the  disciples 
may  guide  us  to  some  extent  in  the  interpretation  of  our  Lord's 
answer;  but  not  throughout;  for  nothing  can  be  plainer  than 
that  the  disciples  entertained  very  imperfect  views  of  the  great 
events  which  they  inquired  about. 

Most  readers  of  the  New  Testament,  and  perhaps  most  com- 
mentators, take  it  for  granted,  that  the  disciples  put  these 
questions  in  the  sense  in  which  they  are  now  generally  under- 
stood; but  this  assumption  requires  investigation,  as  will 
appear,  if  we  consider  them  separately. 

The  first  question,  "When  shall  these  things  be?"  relates 
particularly,  and  we  doubt  not  exclusively,  to  the  destruction 
of  the  temple  foretold,  in  general  terms,  in  the  preceding  (2d) 
verse.  If  we  turn  to  Luke  xxi.  5,  7,  we  find  no  other  ante- 
cedent to  which  "these  things"  can  be  referred.  The  stress  of 
this  question  lies  upon  the  time:  "  Wlien  shall  the  temple  be 
destroyed — when  shall  it  be  so  entirely  demolished  that  not 
one  stone  of  it  shall  be  left  upon  another?"  According  to 
Mark  and  Luke,  this  was  the  only  event  upon  which  they 
asked  for  further  information.  "  When  shall  these  things 
be,  and  ivhat  the  sign  when  these  things  shall  come  to  pass — 
be  fulfilled." 

The  second  question  relates  to  the  Lord's  appearing,  and 
particularly  to  the  sign  of  it:  "What  the  sign  {rr^q  arji; 
7ia[>ooaca^)  of  thy  coming?"  The  disciples  had  been  with  him 
in  the  temple,  Matt,  xxiii.  1,  and  it  is  probable  had  left  it  with 
him.  They  had  heard  his  parting  words:  "Ye  shall  not  see 
me  henceforth  till  ye  say.  Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord."  Ps.  cxviii.  26.  This  declaration  implied 
that  his  ministry  at  Jerusalem  was  ended,  and  that  he  was 
about  to  withdraw  from  the  city,  and  remain  absent  from  it,  at 
least  for  a  time,  the  length  of  which  would  depend  upon  the 
disposition  of  the  people  towards  him.  But  it  contained  no 
intimation  of  the  place  he  was  about  to  retire  to,  nor  of  any 
sign  or  token  of  his  return,  after  the  people  should  be  willing 
to  receive  him.  On  these  points,  or  such  as  these,  the  disciples 
desired  him  to  speak ;  but  their  own  conceptions  of  them,  we 
are  justified  by  other  passages  in  saying,  were  very  imperfect. 
We  must  not  suppose  the  disciples  had  in  their  mind  the  Lord's 
appearance  from  heaven  in  glory  and  power,  or  that  they 
intended  to  inquire  about  such  an  appearance.  They  did  not 
at  that  time  even  know  whither  he  was  going;  but  wherever  it 
might  be,  it  is  probable  they  expected  to  accompany  him,  and 
remain  with,  and  return  with  him.  This  is  evident  from  John 
xiii.  36,  37;  xiv.  5;  xvi.  17,  18,  28,  29.      They  had  no  con- 


312  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

ception  or  thought  of  his  going  out  of  the  world,  nor  of  the 
means  by  which  his  exit  from  the  world  would  be  accomplis^hed. 
John  XX.  9;  Luke  xviii.  34;  xxiv.  21.  We  must  therefore 
understand  the  word  {Ttapouaca^)  translated  coming,  in  its  pri- 
mary signification,  of  being  jjresent,*  in  his  jjt'oper  person,  as  in 
2  Cor.  vii.  6,  7,  where  Paul  speaks  of  the  coming  {rcapooaca)  of 
Titus.  See  1  Cor.  xvi.  17;  2  Cor.  x.  10;  Philip,  i.  26;  ii.  12, 
where  it  is  used  as  the  contrasting  word  to  dnouaca,  being 
absent.  His  being  present  again  after  a  period  of  absence 
implied  his  return  from  some  place  of  which  they  were  igno- 
rant; and  nothing  more  is  involved  in  the  question,  or  can  be 
intended,  when  we  consider  how  little  the  disciples  at  that  time 
knew  of  the  future.  Nor  did  these  disciples  comprehend  the 
answer  of  our  Lord  to  their  questions,  at  least  in  some  of  its 
most  important  particulars,  until  they  received  the  inspiration 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  will  appear  if  we  consider  that  Peter, 
who  was  one  of  them,  two  days  afterwards  did  not  know  why 
he  could  not  then  follow  his  Master  to  the  place  whither  he  was 
going.     John  xiii.  36,  37;  xiv.  5;  xvi.  17,  18,  28,  29. 

Their  third  question  respected  the  ending  {tol)  ahovoz)  of  the 
world.  It  is  not  improbable  that  many  readers  mistake  the 
meaning  of  the  disciples  in  this  inquiry.  It  is  reasonable  to 
suppose,  that  with  the  rest  of  their  countrymen,  they  believed 
that  the  Levitical  economy  which  they  then  enjoyed,  would 
terminate  and  merge  in  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah ;  and  as 
they  fully  believed  that  he  was  the  Messiah,  and  had  confessed 
him  as  such.  Matt.  xvi.  16,  17,  they  naturally  connected  his 
return  and  the  establishment  of  his  kingdom,  not  only  with  the 
ending  of  the  [aluju)  economy  under  which  they  then  lived,  but 
with  a  new  one,  far  more  happy  and  glorious.  Acts  i.  6.  We 
need  not  inquire  what  changes  they  supposed  would  be  wrought 
in  the  transition.  They  had  heard  out  of  the  law,  that  the 
Christ,  when  he  should  take  possession  of  his  throne  and  king- 
dom, Avould  abide  for  ever,  John  xii.  34;  that  his  kingdom  was 
an  everlasting  kingdom,  that  shall  not  pass  aAvay  or  be  de- 
stroyed; that  it  should  be  universal  and  exceedingly  glorious. 

*  The  word  Tr^ova-ta  is  several  times  used  in  the  Epistles  to  signify  our 
Lord's  appearance  trom  heaven;  1  Cor.  xv.  23;  1  Thess.  ii.  19;  iii.  13;  iv.  15; 
V.  23;  2  Thess.  ii.  1,  8;  James  v.  7,  8;  2  Pet.  i.  16;  iii.  4;  1  John  ii.  28,  and 
when  so  used  it  is  synonymous  witli  i7ri<pu.\'ux  and  uttck^kv^k,  or  nearly  so,  hut 
this  use  of  the  word  in  all  these  places  is  founded  upon  that  which  our  Lord 
makes  of  it  in  Matt.  xxiv.  27,  37,  oU,  in  his  reply  to  these  questions  of  the 
disciples,  and  is  altogether  dift'erent  from  that  in  which  the  disciples  here  use 
the  word.  It  is  noticeable  tliat  neither  Mark  nor  Luke  uses  this  word  in 
recording  our  Lord's  reply;  nor  do  any  of  the  Evangelists  employ  it  in  any 
connection,  except  Matthew,  and  he  in  this  chapter  only — verses  3,  27,  37, 
and  39. 


THE   MEANING   OF   THE   DTSCIPLES'   INQUIRIES.  313 

Ps.  Ixxii.  8;  Dan.  vii.  14.  So  great  a  cliange  necessarily 
involved  the  termination  of  the  present  {auoi^)  order  of  things 
{seculorum  ordo,)  and  hence  the  disciples  naturally  connected 
the  end  of  the  world  [auvzsksca  too  aicovo^)  with  the  return  of 
their  Master  to  Jerusalem.  It  should  be  considered  also,  that 
the  disciples  had  no  conception  of  the  events  which  were  to 
occur  between  the  destruction  of  the  temple  and  the  Lord's 
return,  nor  of  the  length  of  time  between  these  events.  Nor 
can  we  infer  from  anything  our  Lord  had  previously  said,  or 
from  their  knowledge  of  the  Divine  purposes,  or  their  expecta- 
tions, that  they  understood  the  purpose  for  which  the  temple 
would  be  destroyed — whether  it  would  be  in  judgment  for  the 
sins  of  the  nation,  or  to  replace  it  by  another,  more  magnificent 
or  more  suitable  to  the  glory  of  the  expected  kingdom.  They 
took  it  for  granted,  also,  that  the  Levitical  economy  would  con- 
tinue until  it  should  be  superseded  by  Messiah's  reign.  This  is 
evident  from  the  form  of  their  question,  "  What  the  sign  of  thy 
coming  and  of  the  end  of  the  [auov]  world."  One  and  the  same 
sign,  they  supposed,  would  serve  for  both  these  events.  Had 
they  understood  the  Divine  purpose  to  open  a  dispensation  of 
the  Gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  of  long  continuance,  between  these 
events,  it  is  natural  to  suppose  they  would  have  changed  the 
order  of  their  questions,  and  asked  a  sign  for  each  event — 
"  What  will  the  sign  of  the  consummation  of  this  {aicov)  dis- 
pensation, and  what  the  sign  of  thy  coming  to  establish  thy 
kingdom?" 

The  words  aoureXeca  too  aicouo^  should  be  rendered,  the  end 
or  consummation  of  the  age  or  dispensation,  or  the  expiration 
of  the  age.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  the  disciples 
intended  to  inquire  about  the  end  of  the  world,  in  the  common 
acceptation  of  the  phrase,  or  the  consummation  of  all  earthly 
things.  The  great  matter  of  interest  to  them  was  the  estab- 
lishment of  their  Master's  kingdom.  This  they  thought  could 
not  be  expected  till  he  should  appear  again  at  Jerusalem,  and 
supersede  the  existing  polity  of  the  nation  by  establishing  his 
own.  Hence  they  connected  these  closely-related  events  in  one 
question,  under  the  preconceived  opinion  or  expectation  of  their 
concurrent  occurrence.  The  phrase  aovzehia  too  aicjvoi;  occurs 
in  the  Gospels,  only  in  Matt.  xiii.  39,  40,  49 ;  xxviii.  20 ;  see 
Heb.  ix.  26,  where  it  denotes  the  consummation  of  the  present 
order  of  things  in  the  world.  In  the  mind  of  the  Saviour,  that 
event  was  much  more  remote  than  the  disciples  conceived  it  to 
be;  yet  in  all  those  places,  the  period  denoted  by  the  phrase 
reaches  to  and  connects  with  the  outward  establishment  of  the 
Messiah's  kingdom.  The  disciples,  (not  knowing  of  the  des- 
truction of  their  nation,  the  dispersion  of  their  people,  the 
40 


314  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

calling  of  the  Elect  Cliurch  out  of  the  Gentiles,  to  be  continued 
through  many  generations)  thought  the  kingdom  would  be 
joined  upon  and  immediately  succeed  the  Levitical  economy. 
Acts.  i.  6.  The  Saviour  knew  the  misconception,  but  left  it 
for  the  Holy  Spirit  to  correct;  while  he  adapted  his  language 
to  the  course  of  events  as  he  foresaw  them. 

It  is  important  to  apprehend  correctly  the  sense  or  meaning 
of  the  disciples  in  the  inquiries  they  propounded  to  the  Saviour. 
In  a  general  sense,  they  constitute  the  subject  of  his  reply,  but 
owing  to  the  imperfection  of  their  knowledge,  and  their  igno- 
rance and  misconceptions  of  the  Divine  purposes,  they  are  not 
to  be  regarded  as  arrangements  adopted  by  our  Lord  in  his 
prophetical  reply,  much  less  are  we  authorized  to  suppose  that 
he  limited  his  meaning  to  their  conceptions  of  the  events  they 
inquired  about. 

Matt.  xxiv.  4,  5.  "And  Jesus  answered  and  said  to  them, 
Take  heed  that  no  one  deceive  you:  for  many  shall  come  in 
my  name,  saying,  I  am  [the]  Christ,  and  shall  deceive  many." 

This  caution  was  suggested  by  the  misapprehension  of  the 
disciples  as  to  the  ma7iner  of  his  return.  They  thought  of  his 
going  away  from  Jerusalem  as  he  had  gone  before,  and  of  his 
returning,  as  he  had  returned  before.  See  notes  on  verse  2. 
Under  the  influence  of  this  error,  supposing  it  to  continue, 
they  might  be  in  danger  of  being  led  astray  by  false  Christs, 
who  would  appear  in  that  way.  Hence  he  assures  them  in 
effect,  that  any  one  appearing  in  the  manner  in  Avhich  they 
supposed  he  would  appear,  would  be  a  deceiver,  especially  if 
he  openly  assumed  the  character  and  title  of  Christ.  He,  the 
true  Messiah,  would  never  again  appear  in  this  way.  But  he 
did  not  pause  in  his  discourse  to  tell  them  how  he  should 
appear. 

That  was  to  be  taught  them  by  events,  by  the  ministry  of 
angels.  Acts  i.  10,  11 ;  iii.  21,  and  by  the  teachings  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Why  then,  it  may  be  inquired,  did  the  Saviour 
give  them  this  caution — "Take  heed  that  no  one  deceive  you." 
What  he  said  on  this  occasion  was  not,  as  we  suppose,  especially 
designed  for  the  four  disciples,  whom  he  thus  addressed.  It 
was  for  the  public  instruction  of  all  that  people,  as  well  those 
who  should  not  become  his  followers,  as  those  who  should.  The 
misapprehension  of  the  disciples  as  to  the  manner  of  Messiah's 
coming  to  establish  his  kingdom,  was  common  to  the  nation  at 
that  time,  and  has  been  in  all  their  generations  since.  This 
caution,  therefore,  though  not  necessary  to  guard  the  apostles 
against  deceivers,  (other  and  more  effectual  means  having  been 
appointed,  in  respect  to  them,  for  that  purpose)  was  necessary 
for  multitudes  of  that  people,  who  were  to  be  less  favoured. 


FALSE   CHRISTS   TO   ARISE.  315 

No  unbelieving  Jew  expects  that  the  Messiah  will  appear  in  the 
clouds  of  heaven.  This  is  a  doctrine  of  Christianity  which  the 
Jews  reject.  The  caution,  therefore,  we  regard  as  a  warning 
to  Jeivs^  especially  designed  to  guard  them  against  deceivers, 
who  Avere  to  arise  from  time  to  time  during  the  whole  of  their 
future  history,  and  through  this  common  error  of  the  nation, 
mislead  all  who  denied  or  would  not  regard  the  Divine  mission 
and  authority  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

It  is  noticeable,  too,  that  our  Lord  here  expressly  claims  the 
name  or  title  of  Christ — "Many  shall  come  in  my  name,  say- 
ing, I  am  Christ" — thereby  showing  that  the  outward  assump- 
tion of  the  title  was  another  note  or  mark  by  which  deceivers 
might  be  infallibly  known.  See  notes  on  Matt  xi.  3;  xvi.  20. 
For  the  reader  must  remember,  that  hitherto  he  had  not  publicly 
assumed  that  character,  John  x.  24,  and  did  not,  until  he  was 
adjured  by  the  High  Priest  to  avow  the  character  which  he 
sustained.  Matt.  xxvi.  63;  Mark  xiv.  61;  Luke  xxii.  67,  68. 

Matt.  xxiv.  6.  "And  ye  shall  hear  of  wars,  and  rumours  of 
wars:  see  that  ye  be  not  troubled:  for  all  these  things  must 
come  to  pass,  but  [to  ztXoz]  the  end  is  not  yet." 

The  special  design  of  the  prophecy  of  the  appearing  of  false 
Christs  was,  as  we  have  just  said,  to  enforce  a  caution  of  the 
utmost  importance,  on  account  of  the  prevailing  misapprehen- 
sion of  the  Jews  relative  to  the  manner  in  which  the  Messiah 
•would  come  to  establish  his  kingdom.  As  to  his  first  coming, 
they  were  right  in  supposing  that  he  would  appear  after  the 
manner  of  men.  Matt.  ii.  5;  John  vii.  41,  27,  31;  iv.  25.  But 
having  ignorantly  rejected  him  as  a  false  Christ,  as  a  conse- 
quence of  their  error,  they  would  be  continually  thereafter 
looking  for  another,  who  should  come  in  the  same  way. 

Now  he  adds:  "And  ye  shall  hear  of  wars  and  rumours  of 
"wars."  But  these  would  not  be  proximate  signs  of  the  end 
about  which  they  inquired.  We  have  here  an  example  of  the 
double  sense,  and  are  able  to  show,  with  some  probability,  the 
ground  or  reason  of  it.  The  disciples,  as  we  have  seen,  thought 
that  the  end  of  the  Levitical  economy  and  of  the  existing 
physical  order  or  condition  of  things  in  the  world  would  concur 
in  point  of  time,  and  that  both  would  be  followed  immediately 
by  Messiah's  kingdom,  which  they  conceived  would  be  exceed- 
ingly glorious.  The  Saviour's  conception  was  very  different. 
He  knew  that  a  long  interval  was  laid,  in  the  Divine  purpose 
between  the  ending  of  the  Levitical  economy  and  his  second 
coming — in  other  words,  that  the  end  of  the  Levitical  economy 
would  not  mark  or  concur  in  point  of  time  with  the  end  of  the 
existing  physical  order  of  things  in  the  world,  see  notes  on 
Acts  iii.  21,  although  the   existing  physical  order  of   things 


316  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

would  be  terminated  by  his  coming  in  his  kingdom.  The  dif- 
ferent senses  of  the  word  {t£?.o^)  end  therefore  result  from  the 
different  conceptions  the  disciples  and  the  Saviour  had  of  the 
things  inquired  about;  and  the  language  is  adapted  to  both 
these  senses.  The  wars  and  the  rumours  of  wars  which  he  fore- 
told would  not  be  a  proximate  sign  of  the  end  either  of  the 
Jewish  polity,  or  of  that  period  which,  in  the  Divine  purpose, 
had  been  appointed  to  precede  the  actual  coming  of  Messiah's 
kingdom.    Acts  iii.  21. 

A  similar  but  more  striking  example  of  the  double  sense 
occurs  in  the  14th  verse:  "And  this  gospel  of  the  kingdom 
shall  be  preached  in  all  the  world  {olxoo fxtvYj)  for  a  witness  unto 
all  nations,  and  then  shall  (ro  rtlo^)  the  end  come."  The  uni- 
versal promulgation  of  the  Gospel  for  a  witness,  our  Lord  here 
declares,  is  the  true  sign  of  the  end — that  is,  of  the  end  in  the 
sense  in  which  the  disciples  put  their  question,  and  in  the  sense 
which,  in  the  Saviour's  mind,  it  really  involved.  The  end  of 
the  Jewish  state  or  polity,  in  fact,  came  when  the  Gospel  had 
been  preached  throughout  the  {or/oujuisurj)  inhabited  portions  of 
the  earth,  as  it  was  at  that  time.  See  Luke  ii.  1;  iv.  5; 
xxi.  26;  Acts  xi.  28;  xvii.  6,  31;  xix.  27;  xxiv.  5;  Rom. 
X.  18;  Heb.  i.  6;  ii.  5;  Rev.  iii.  10;  xii.  9;  xvi.  14;  for  the 
use  of  the  word  ohoufxevfj,  see  also  Rom.  i.  8.  The  answer, 
thus  understood,  fully  met  the  question  in  the  sense  it  was  put 
by  the  disciples.  They  were,  in  fact,  incapable  at  that  time 
of  understanding  it  in  any  other  sense,  owing  to  their  ignorance 
of  the  Divine  purposes  in  regard  to  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles. 
Acts  x.  34,  35.  Departing,  however,  from  the  destruction  of 
the  Jewish  state  as  an  epoch,  and  stretching  through  the  then 
mysterious  and  undefined  period  of  mercy  allotted  to  the  Gen- 
tiles; the  end  of  the  present  physical  order  of  things  and  the 
epoch  of  Messiah's  kingdom  will  come,  when  this  Gospel 
shall  have  been  preached,  as  it  were,  a  second  time,  throughout 
a  much  more  extended  {oixou/isvrj)  area  than  that  then  occupied 
by  the  nations.  This  sense  is  involved  in  the  prophecy  of  the 
third  mission  of  the  servants  in  the  parable  of  the  marriage. 
Matt,  xxiii.  9;  see  notes. 

The  words  (rsAoc)  end,  and  [oixoufitvrj)  world,  then  both  have, 
it  is  conceived,  a  double,  that  is,  a  limited  and  an  enlarged 
sense,  corresponding  with  the  limited  sense  in  which  the  ques- 
tion was  put  by  the  disciples,  and  the  enlarged  sense  in  which 
it  was  understood  by  the  Saviouv.  According  to  the  concep- 
tion of  the  disciples,  the  answer  of  our  Lord  was  fulfilled,  as 
the  event  showed,  in  the  brief  space  of  forty  years — or  less. 
According  to  our  Lord's  conception  of  the  question,  as  inter- 
preted by  the  Divine  purposes,  his  answer  is  yet  in  progress  of 


MEANING   OF   THE   END.  317 

fulfilment.  According  to  this  view,  in  the  mind  of  the  Saviour, 
the  passage  of  which  this  verse  forms  the  conclusion,  really 
extends  from  the  time  of  the  delivery  of  the  prophecy  to  his 
second  coming,  while  in  the  mind  of  the  disciples  it  could  reach 
only  to  the  end  of  the  Jewish  polity,  with  which  they  generally 
connected  the  return  of  their  Master :  In  other  words,  besides 
the  plain,  obvious  meaning  of  the  language,  considered  as 
responsive  to  the  question  of  the  disciples,  in  the  sense  in 
which  they  put  it,  there  was  a  hidden  meaning,  founded  upon 
the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom,  see  Matt.  chap,  xiii.,  which  the 
Saviour  left  for  the  Holy  Spirit  to  unfold  to  the  apostles,  in 
connection  with  the  developments  of  his  providence  in  a  new 
dispensation. 

We  pause  not  to  consider  whether  this  observation  is  appli- 
cable to  all  the  announcements  of  this  passage.  The  question 
is  difficult,  and  difi"erent  views  of  it  have  been  entertained  by 
commentators,  ancient  and  modern.  See  Grotius,  Calovius, 
Jerome,  Augustine,  on  verse  6.  That  they  were  all  designed 
as  notes  of  personal  warning  to  the  apostles  and  the  Christians 
of  their  age,  and  were  fulfilled  in  their  experience,  we  do  not 
doubt,  nor  should  we,  even  if  there  were  no  historical  record  of 
the  events;  compare  verse  9  with  John  xvi.  2;  Matt.  xxii.  6; 
1  Thess.  ii.  15,  16.  Beyond  this,  we  perceive  no  sufiicient  data 
for  any  certain  conclusions. 

Matt.  xxiv.  15.  "When  ye,  therefore,  shall  see  the  abomi- 
nation of  desolation  spoken  of  by  Daniel  the  prophet,  stand  in 
the  holy  place,  (whoso  readeth,  let  him  understand.)" 

If  we  understand  the  word  "end,"  in  the  6th  and  14th 
verses,  in  the  sense  of  the  Saviour,  this  verse  is  a  resuming,  or 
going  back  from  the  yet  future  end  of  the  present  dispensation, 
to  its  beginning,  or  nearly.  But  if  we  understand  it  in  the 
sense  of  the  disciples,  as  denoting  simply  the  end  of  the  Jewish 
polity,  this  verse  would  be  in  regular  prosecution  of  the  pro- 
phetic narrative.  Plainly,  it  is  introductory  of  the  events  and 
consequences  of  the  siege  of  Jerusalem.  The  language  is  figu- 
rative, and  evidently  addressed  to  the  conceptions  of  Jewish 
readers.  Luke,  as  his  method  is,  expresses  the  same  in  plain 
language,  chap.  xxi.  20.  We  have  had  occasion  repeatedly  to 
employ  the  narrative  of  Luke  as  explanatory  of  Matthew,  see 
Matt.  xi.  12;  xxvii.  64,  and  shall  have  occasion  to  do  so  again 
in  one  of  the  most  obscure  places  in  the  prophecy  we  are  con- 
sidering. But  in  order  to  clearness,  we  must  pause  here,  to 
state  some  general  views,  and  with  them  connect  the  particular 
observations  we  have  to  make. 

The  whole  of  this  prophecy  may  be  distributed  into  four 
distinct    periods,    which    are   consecutive,    except    so   far    as 


318  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

the  enlarged  views  of  the  Saviour  imparted  a  mysterious, 
and  thereby  a  two-fokl  meaning  to  his  language,  as  before 
explained.  These  periods  may  be  denoted:  (1.)  Jerusalem's 
respite.  (2.)  Jerusalem's  desolation.  (3.)  The  distress  of  the 
nations;  and  (4.)  the  advent  of  the  Son  of  Man  and  the 
judgment  of  all  nations.  This  distribution  leaves  out  of  view 
the  parable  of  the  ten  virgins,  the  chronological  order  or 
sequence  of  which  is  not  so  distinctly  marked  as  that  of  the 
other  parts,  and  for  that  reason,  it  requires  a  separate  con- 
sideration. 

I.  To  the  first  of  these  periods  we  assign  verses  4 — 14,  in- 
clusive, of  this  chapter,  and  the  corresponding  verses  of  the 
other  Evangelists,  Mark  xiii.  5 — 13;  and  Luke  xxi.  8 — 19. 
This  period,  as  before  observed,  is  the  same  as  that  denoted  by 
the  second  mission  of  the  servants  in  the  parable  of  the  mar- 
riage.  Matt.  xxii.  4 — 6. 

The  reader  should  reflect  upon  this  coincidence.  It  is 
quite  agreeable  to  our  Lord's  manner  of  teaching,  Matt, 
xiii.  11 ;  discriminating,  as  we  have  had  frequent  occasion  to 
remark,  between  the  careless  and  unfriendly  multitudes  and 
his  disciples.  It  is  also  a  beautiful  example  of  the  harmony 
which  pervades  his  discourses  upon  this  last  great  day  of  his 
public  ministry. 

There  is  a  difference,  also,  between  the  Evangelists  in  this 
part,  too  important  to  be  overlooked,  Mark  and  Luke  omit 
the  observation  of  the  Saviour  which  Matthew  records  in  the 
14th  verse:  "And  this  Gospel,  &c.,  shall  be  preached  in  all 
the  world  [ohoufizvyj,)  for  a  witness  unto  all  nations,  and  then 
shall  {to  zeXoz)  the  end  come."  In  this  expression,  chiefly,  as 
we  have  have  seen,  lies  the  double  sense,  Avhich  the  disciples  at 
that  time  were  incapable  of  apprehending.  But  observe: 
Mark  and  Luke  record  only  one  of  the  questions  of  the  dis- 
ciples; that,  namely,  respecting  the  destruction  of  the  temple; 
and  consistently,  therefore,  they  record  only  so  much  of  the 
Saviour's  answer  as  had  respect  to  that  question.  Indeed,  if 
they  had  introduced  into  their  narratives  the  matter  of  this 
14th  verse,  it  would  have  been  due  to  accuracy,  and  even  truth, 
to  have  introduced  the  other  two  questions  of  the  disciples. 
The  observation  is  important  because  it  shows  us  why  we  are 
not  to  look  for  .a  double  sense  in  this  portion  of  Mark  and 
Luke.  It  is  delightful  to  notice  these  congruities.  They  are 
designed;  and  although  not  commonly  pointed  out,  even  by  the 
learned,  they  are  really  a  perfect  moral  demonstration  of  the 
inspiration  of  the  Evangelists.  No  fabricator  of  false  writings 
could  make,  or  even  imagine  so  nice  an  adjustment  of  parts. 
Nay,  more — no   writer,  untaught  by  the   Holy  Spirit  in   the 


Jerusalem's  desolation.  319 

mysteries  of  the  kingdom,  could  even  perceive  the  need  of  it  in 
this  instance. 

II,  Under  the  head  of  Jerusalem's  desolation  we  include  not 
only  the  actual  destruction  of  the  city  by  the  Romans,  but  the 
continued  desolation  of  the  land,  the  captivity  and  dispersion 
of  the  people  during  the  eighteen  centuries  which  have  followed. 
The  period  is  undefined  in  prophecy,  but  Luke  relatively  marks 
it  as  co-extensive  with  the  times  of  the  Gentiles;  perhaps  he 
means  the  times  of  mercy  appointed  to  the  Gentiles,  as  well  as 
the  times  of  their  power,  chap.  xxi.  24.  To  the  epoch  of  the 
destruction  of  the  city  by  the  Romans,  we  assign  verses  15 — 
27  of  this  chapter;  also  Mark  xiii.  14 — 23;  and  Luke  xxi. 
20,  21,  23,  and  the  first  clause  of  the  24th  verse.  To  the 
ensuing  ages  of  the  desolation  of  the  city  and  the  land,  and  its 
subjection  to  Gentile  power,  and  the  condition  of  the  people 
during  the  same  period,  we  assign  the  22d,  and  the  last  clause 
of  the  24th  verse  of  Luke  xxi.  Matthew  xxiv.  28,  appears  to 
refer  especially  to  the  condition  of  the  people  during  the  same 
prolonged  period.  Mark  passes,  at  verse  24,  from  the  calam- 
ities immediately  consequent  upon  the  destruction  of  the  city, 
to  the  third  of  the  great  periods  before  mentioned,  without  any 
notice  of  intervening  events.  Let  us  attend  now  to  some  of  the 
particulars. 

Matt.  xxiv.  16 — 22.  "Then  let  them  which  be  in  Judea 
flee  into  the  mountains:  let  him  which  is  on  the  house-top  not 
come  down  to  take  anything  out  of  his  house:  neither  let  him 
which  is  in  the  field  return  back  to  take  his  clothes.  And  wo 
unto  them  that  are  with  child,  and  to  them  that  give  suck  in 
those  days !  But  pray  ye  that  your  flight  be  not  in  the  winter, 
neither  on  the  Sabbath-day:  for  then  shall  be  great  tribulation, 
such  as  was  not  since  the  beginning  of  the  world  to  this  time, 
no,  nor  ever  shall  be.  And  except  those  days  should  be 
shortened,  there  should  no  flesh  be  saved:  but  for  the  elect's 
sake  those  days  shall  be  shortened." 

These  verses  contain  cautions  and  directions  applicable,  evi- 
dently, to  the  Jews  of  that  age.  Resistance  would  be  hopeless: 
escape  impossible,  if  these  cautions  and  directions  were  disre- 
garded; and  destruction  to  those  incapable  of  obeying  them 
would  be  inevitable. 

Matt.  xxiv.  23 — 27.  "Then  if  any  man  shall  say  unto 
you,  Lo,  here  is  Christ,  or  there;  believe  it  not.  For  there 
shall  arise  false  Christs,  and  false  prophets,  and  shall  show 
great  signs  and  wonders;  insomuch  that,  if  it  were  possible, 
they  shall  deceive  the  very  elect.  Behold,  I  have  told  you 
before.  Wherefore,  if  they  shall  say  unto  you,  Behold,  he  is  in 
the  desert;  go  not  forth:  Behold,  he  is  in  the  secret  chambers; 


320  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

believe  it  not.  For  as  the  lightning  cometh  out  of  the  east, 
and  shineth  even  unto  the  west;  so  shall  also  the  coming  of  the 
Son  of  Man  be." 

The  Saviour  here  returns  to  his  prediction  of  the  appearance 
of  false  Christs,  as  if  to  impress  it  the  more  deeply  upon  the 
minds  of  his  followers.  We  do  not  suppose  that  this  was 
intended  especially  for  the  four  disciples  who  questioned  him, 
or  even  for  the  apostles ;  for  we  know  that  all  but  one  of  them 
suffered  death  before  the  destruction  of  the  city.  Nor  would 
they,  as  before  observed,  be  in  danger  of  being  deceived  by 
false  Christs  or  false  prophets,  for  they  were  soon  afterwards 
taught,  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  see  Acts  i.  9 — 11;  iii.  21,  that 
their  Master  would  not  appear  again  {rnore  Jiumano,)  after  the 
manner  of  men.  To  multitudes  of  the  nation,  however,  to 
whom  this  Gospel  would  be  knoAvn,  and  who,  by  the  happening 
of  the  events  the  Saviour  foretold,  might  be  almost  persuaded 
of  his  Divine  mission,  these  were  benign  warnings,  to  which  it 
is  not  improbable  many  gave  heed. 

Matt.  xxiv.  26 — 27.  "Wherefore,  if  they  shall  say  unto 
you.  Behold,  he  is  in  the  desert;  go  not  forth:  Behold,  he  is  in 
the  secret  chambers;  believe  it  not.  For  as  the  lightning 
cometh  out  of  the  east,  and  shineth  even  unto  the  west;  so 
shall  also  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  be." 

We  regard  this  27th  verse  as  a  simile  or  comparison  designed 
simply  to  show  the  difference  between  the  manner  of  the  appear- 
ance of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  of  these  false  Christs.  Our  Lord 
does  not  affirm  that  he  will,  at  the  epoch  of  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  make  his  appearance,  but  that  when  he  next 
appears,  the  manner  of  his  appearance  will  be  as  different  from 
that  of  these  false  Christs,  as  the  appearance  of  the  lightning's 
flash  is  from  the  natural  approach  of  a  human  being.  In  other 
words;  it  will  be  as  impossible  to  mistake  his  appearance  for 
that  of  any  other  human  being,  as  it  will  be  to  mistake  a  flash 
of  lightning  from  one  end  of  heaven  to  the  other,  for  any  other 
phenomenon  of  nature. 

Matt.  xxiv.  28.  "For  [and]  wheresoever  the  carcass  \to 
TTTM/jLf/]  is,  there  will  the  eagles  be  gathered  together." 

Under  this  expressive  image  {to  Trrio/ua,  the  carcass,)  our 
Lord  represents  the  nation,  during  the  whole  period  of  the 
calamities  which  were  to  follow  the  destruction  of  their  city 
and  country.  He  employs  it  as  a  permanent  symbol  of  the 
nation  during  the  whole  period  of  its  subjection  to  Gentile 
power.  The  prophet  Ezekiel,  chap,  xxxvii.,  represents  the 
whole  house  of  Israel  under  the  imagery  of  dry  bones.  The 
symbol  our  Lord  employs,  while  it  expresses  with  equal  empha- 
sis the  spiritual  death  of  the  nation,  is  designed  principally  to 


THE  DISTRESS   OF  THE   NATIONS.  321 

represent  its  exposure  to  the  power  of  their  enemies.  Thus 
considered  it  is  full  of  meaning.  The  Elect  nation,  hitherto  so 
highly  favoured  of  God,  is  represented  as  a  carcass  cast  out 
into  the  waste,  without  the  common  privilege  of  burial  or  any 
permanent  resting-place — continually  preyed  upon,  without 
being  consumed,  by  ravenous  birds.  Consistently  with  this 
exposition,  we  understand  the  eagles  to  represent  not  the 
Roman  power  only,  but  all  those  Gentile  powers  which  have 
since  hitherto  persecuted  and  oppressed  this  outcast  nation. 

This  meaning  of  the  symbol  we  derive  from  the  Evangelist 
Luke  xxi.  22.  "For  these  be  the  days  of  vengeance,  that  all 
things  which  are  written  may  be  fulfilled,"  which  we  paraphrase 
thus:  For  this  event  (encompassing  Jerusalem  with  armies)  will 
mark  the  beginning  of  that  lengthened  period  during  which  all 
the  Divine  judgments  foretold  by  Moses  and  the  prophets 
against  this  nation,  shall  be  inflicted  upon  it,  so  that  not  one 
shall  remain  afterwards  to  be  fulfilled.  See  Deut.  xxviii. 
15 — 68;  Isa.  liv.  8 — 10.  There  is  nothing  in  Mark  which 
can  be  deemed  equivalent  to  either  of  these  expressions  in 
Matthew  and  Luke.  Hence  he  passes  immediately  from  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  to  the  third  of  the  great  periods 
before  mentioned — the  distress  of  the  nations.  It  is  true  that, 
with  the  light  the  other  two  Evangelists  reflect  on  his  narra- 
tive, we  may  discern  an  indistinct  allusion  in  the  19th  and 
24th  verses,  to  prolonged  national  calamities,  and  more  intense, 
than  any  which  had  ever  before  been  experienced.  But  this  is 
not  a  sufl5cient  ground  for  independent  interpretation.  Nor  is 
there  anything  in  Matthew  equivalent  to  this  plain  declaration 
of  Luke,  except  the  verse  under  consideration. 

That  these  expressions  are  equivalent,  and  that  the  lan- 
guage of  Luke  was  employed  with  the  design  to  explain  the 
dark  and  awful  saying  of  the  Lord,  and  to  show  its  application, 
we  do  not  doubt.  But  to  verify  this  opinion  would  require  an 
examination  of  the  things  predicted  by  the  prophets,  and  the 
histories  of  their  fulfilment,  in  order  to  perceive  the  aptness 
and  the  force  of  the  symbols  here  employed  by  the  Saviour  to 
represent  them.  This  is  a  labour  of  time,  which  we  must  leave 
to  the  reader. 

We  add:  this  period,  which,  like  the  preceding,  belongs  to 
Jewish  history,  is  still  current.  The  end  of  it  is  among  the 
unrevealed  purposes  of  the  Father.  Acts  i.  7.  Relatively  to 
the  Church,  that  is,  to  the  period  appointed  for  the  gathering 
of  the  Elect  Church,  (or  that  subrogated  nation,  of  which  our 
Lord  spoke  at  the  conclusion  of  the  parable  of  the  vineyard, 
see  Matt.  xxi.  43,  and  notes)  we  know,  however,  that  it  is  the 
same,  each  being,  in  fact,  the  measure  of  the  other.  See  Luke 
41 


322  KOTES  ON   SCRIPTURE. 

xxi.  24.  And  it  is  with  a  view,  as  we  conceive,  to  this  coinci- 
dence, the  Saviour  introduces,  in  the  sequel  of  this  discourse, 
the  parable  of  the  ten  virgins,  Matt.  xxv.  1 — 12,  which  relates 
especially  to  his  advent  as  Messiah,  to  receive  his  elect  people, 
and  not  to  his  advent  as  the  Son  of  Man,  for  the  judgment  of 
all  nations. 

III.  According  to  the  distribution  before  indicated,  the  third 
period — or  the  period  of  distress  of  the  nations — is  yet  future. 
Gentile  power  is  still  dominant  in  the  earth.  Ever  since  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem,  the  Romans,  and  the  nations  which  have  suc- 
ceeded to  their  dominion,  have  preyed  like  vultures  upon  the 
carcass  and  scattered  members  of  the  Jewish  Commonwealth — 
a  fact,  which  of  itself  proves,  that  the  predicted  period  of  their 
distresses  has  not  yet  commenced.  See  Jer.  xlvi.  28;  xxv. 
15 — 33.  Distresses  they  have  felt,  inflicted  by  each  other,  yet 
always  under  the  restraining  hand  of  God,  but  none  such  as 
they  have  inflicted  on  the  Jews.  The  symbols  which  the 
Saviour  employs  to  denote  the  events  of  this  period,  in  Matt. 
xxiv.  29 ;  Mark  xiii.  24,  25 ;  Luke  xxi.  25,  26 — the  verses 
which  we  assign  to  this  period — betoken  extraordinary  Divine 
judgments;  such  as  have  never  yet  been  seen  or  felt.  See 
2  Thess.  i.  1—9 ;  Mai.  iv. ;  Isa.  ii.  10—22 ;  Ixvi.  15,  16. 

The  futurity  of  this  period  may  be  inferred  also  from  the 
language  of  the  Evangelists.  "Immediately  after  (rr^v  dh(/'cv 
Tcou  ■fjixzpcov  kxetvcov)  the  tribulation  of  those  days,"  &c.,  says 
Matthew;  that  is,  immediately  after  the  end  of  the  period 
appointed  for  the  tribulation  of  the  Jews.  The  language  of 
Mark,  xiii.  24,  is  equivalent,  because  he  says  expressly,  that  it 
is  after  (r-yv  dlnpiv  kxtcvrjv)  that  tribulation  which  he  had  before 
described  as  coming  upon  the  Jews.  Luke  is  the  most  explicit. 
He  shows  that  this  tribulation  [dA:(/>i^)  includes  the  whole  {dpyvj 
ip  Tco  Xaoi  xourco)  of  the  wrath  foretold  against  that  people, 
which,  as  Mr.  Alford  remarks,  "  is  yet  being  inflicted,  and 
the  treading  down  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Gentiles,  is  still  going 
on." 

Besides  these  arguments,  derived  from  the  texts,  there  is 
another  of  great  force,  founded  upon  God's  method  of  dealing 
with  Jews  and  Gentiles,  which  is  distinctly  noticed  by  St.  Paul 
in  Rom.  xi.  30,  31,  33,  and  see  verses  11  and  12,  19—22; 
i.  16.  This  method  hitherto  has  been  characterized  by  alter- 
nations of  mercy  and  judgment ;  first  to  the  Jew,  and  then  to 
the  Gentile.  ,  The  period  of  Judah's  desolation  is  the  appointed 
period  of  mercy  to  the  Gentiles,  and  of  the  preaching  of  the 
Gospel  to  them  for  the  gathering  of  an  elect  people  into  the 
place  of  Israel,  under  the  covenant  at  Horeb.  This  period, 
which  is  now  current,  cannot  therefore  coincide  to  any  extent 


THE  ADVENT   OF  THE   SON   OF   MAN.  323 

with  the  period  of  distress  which  the  Saviour  here  foretells. 
The  very  purpose  for  which  this  period  of  mercy  was  appointed, 
evinces  that  it  cannot  take  place  until  the  Church  shall  have 
been  fully  gathered ;  consequently  it  must  follow  the  excision 
and  reprobation  of  the  Gentiles — an  act  of  judgment  which 
shall  sooner  or  later  be  performed — for  the  same  reason  that 
the  Jews  were  cut  off,  namely,  the  abuse  of  the  privileges 
bestowed  upon  them.     But  to  proceed: 

How  long  this  period  of  the  distress  of  the  nations,  when  it 
shall  have  commenced,  will  continue,  is  a  secret  hidden  in  the 
Divine  mind.  That  it  will  be  brief  compared  with  the  period 
of  Jerusalem's  desolation,  may  perhaps  be  inferred  from  the 
magnitude  and  the  glory  of  the  purposes  to  be  accomplished  in 
the  dispensation  of  the  Gospel  to  the  Gentiles.  See  Isaiah  liii. 
11 :  Rev.  vii.  9.  It  may  be,  that  during  this  period,  Israel  will 
be  restored  to  the  land  of  the  covenant,  in  order  to  their  being 
afterwards  converted  and  constituted  into  a  new  and  more  glo- 
rious earthly  theocracy  than  the  former  was ;  and  if  such  be  the 
Divine  purpose,  it  would  be  analogical  with  the  purpose  to  be 
accomplished  during  the  period  of  Jerusalem's  desolation,  viz. 
the  gathering  of  an  elect  nation  out  of  the  Gentiles,  to  be  con- 
stituted into  a  heavenly  theocracy,  or  a  kingdom  of  kings  and 
priests.  But  this  is  offered  simply  as  a  conjecture,  the  value 
of  which  depends  upon  the  support  it  receives  from  the  predic- 
tions of  the  ancient  prophets.  We  confess  to  the  belief,  how- 
ever, that  some  great  purpose,  besides  merely  that  of  inflicting 
judgments  upon  the  nations,  will  be  accomplished  during  this 
period;  and  also  to  our  ignorance,  what  that  purpose  can 
be,  unless  that  which  we  have  suggested.  See  Dan.  xii.  1 
and  12. 

IV.  The  next  period  is  that  of  the  visible  advent  of  the  Son 
of  Man  in  the  clouds  of  heaven,  Matt.  xxiv.  30,  31;  Mark 
xiii.  26,  27;  Luke  xxi.  27,  with  which  we  connect  the  judgment 
of  the  nations.  Matt.  xxv.  31 — 46.  Not  that  we  suppose  the 
judgment  of  the  nations  described  in  thq  latter  passage  will 
immediately  succeed  upon  the  advent  described  in  the  former 
of  these  passages.  On  the  contrary,  there  may  be  a  very  long 
interval  between  them,  to  be  filled  up  with  the  greatest  imagin- 
able events.  All  the  things  predicted  by  the  apostle  John,  from 
llev.  xix.  11,  to  the  end  of  the  twentieth  chapter,  even  the 
judgment  of  all  the  dead  may  intervene.  On  this  point  we 
affirm  nothing.  But  we  may  perhaps  safely  affirm  that  with  the 
advent  of  the  Son  of  Man  in  power  and  great  glory,  will  com- 
mence a  new  era  of  the  Divine  administration  over  man  and 
this  earth,  in  which  that  great  and  glorious  being  will  take  an 
open  and  direct  control  over  this  part  of  his  dominions. 


324  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

These  observations,  though  proper  for  explanation,  are  aside 
from  our  present  purpose,  which  is  to  consider  the  structure  of 
the  Lord's  discourse,  and  the  logical  connection  of  its  parts, 
which  we  conceive  to  be  in  itself  a  matter  of  importance.  We 
proceed  therefore  to  say,  that  if  this  be  the  just  connection  of 
the  discourse  as  recorded  by  Matthew,  we  may  regard  the 
passage  from  Matt.  xxiv.  32  to  xxv.  30,  inclusive,  as  paren- 
thetical, or  we  may  consider  Matt.  xxv.  31 — 46,  as  a  resuming 
of  the  prophetical  discou;-se  at  xxiv.  31,  which  the  Saviour 
suspended  at  that  verse  for  the  purpose  of  giving  some  private 
notes  or  tokens  of  warning,  admonition,  and  exhortation,  to  hia 
followers.  It  may  be  added  that  the  passages  in  Mark  xiii. 
28 — 37,  and  Luke  xxi.  28 — 36,  are  of  this  admonitory  nature. 

This  period — that  of  the  advent — we  conceive,  will  be  sepa- 
rated from  the  preceding  by  an  interval  of  some  extent.  This 
opinion  is  founded  upon  the  description  our  Lord  himself  gives 
of  the  world  at  the  time  of  his  coming,  in  verses  37,  39,  and 
see  Luke  xvii.  26 — 30.  Ignorant  and  regardless  of  the  impend- 
ing event,  the  masses  of  the  nations  will  be  in  eager  pursuit 
of  all  the  delights  of  this  life,  as  they  were  in  the  days  of 
Noah;  and  Paul,  writing  by  inspiration,  1  Thess.  v.  2,  3, 
describes  the  day  of  the  Lord's  coming  as  a  time  of  supposed 
peace  and  safety.  Accordingly  we  understand  the  29th  and 
30th  verses  of  this  chapter  thus: 

"Immediately  after  the  tribulation  of  those  days  [that  is, 
immediately  after  the  termination  of  that  period,  during  which 
the  Jewish  body  politic,  or  state,  is  represented  in  the  preceding 
verse  as  a  dead  carcass  preyed  upon  by  vultures,]  the  sun  shall 
be  darkened,  and  the  moon  shall  not  give  her  light,  and  the 
powers  of  the  heaven  shall  be  shaken :  and  then  [that  is  next  in 
the  order  of  these  great  steps  in  the  march  of  Divine  Providence 
towards  the  consummation]  shall  appear  the  sign  of  the  Son  of 
Man  in  heaven:  and  then  shall  all  the  tribes  of  the  earth 
mourn,  and  they  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  coming  in  the 
clouds  of  heaven  with  power  and  great  glory."  Mark  xiii.  24; 
Luke  xxi.  27. 

We  pause  not  to  inquire  what  we  are  to  understand  by  "  the 
sign  of  the  Son  of  Man,  in  heaven," — an  expression  which 
both  Mark  and  Luke  omit.  At  most  we  can  only  conjecture; 
and  it  is  sufficient  for  our  present  purpose  to  observe,  that  what- 
ever that  sign  may  be,  it  will  not  appear  till  after  the  distress 
of  the  nations,  and  the  interval  of  fancied  peace  and  safety  is 
past;  for  it  will  be  a  sign  of  trouble,  causing  all  the  tribes  of 
the  earth  to  mourn. 

This  consideration  suggests  that  this  advent  of  the  Son  of 
Man,    mentioned   in   Matt.    xxv.    31,   will    be    only   for    the 


THE    JUDGMENT   OF   THE    NATIONS.  325 

judgment  of  all  the  nations  living  on  the  earth  at  that  time; 
not  including  the  generations  of  the  dead.  For  observe,  it  is 
in  his  Adamic  character,  or  as  the  Son  of  Man,  he  sits  upon 
his  throne  and  exercises  judgment.  In  the  preceding  notes  the 
attention  of  the  reader  has  been  frequently  called  to  the 
different  relations  our  Lord  sustains  to  Israel,  to  the  Church, 
and  to  the  world.  See  the  notes  on  Matt.  xii.  8,  also  see  notes 
on  Matt.  viii.  23—27,  28—32;  ix.  2;  xiv.  17;  xvi.  13,  14, 
27;  xviii.  22,  23;  xxii.  41 — 45.  As  Messiah,  he  has  a  king- 
dom of  kings  and  priests, — a  multitude  which  no  one  can 
number,  collected  out  of  all  nations,  and  kindreds,  and  people, 
and  tongues.  Rev.  vi.  4 — 9.  These  he  will  glorify  and  exalt 
to  a  parnership  in  his  throne.  Rev.  iii.  21,  and  see  notes  on 
Matt.  xxi.  43 ;  xxii.  14.  It  is  to  that  small  portion  of  this 
immensely  great  and  glorious  body,  who  shall  be  living  un- 
glorified  in  the  flesh  at  the  end  of  this  dispensation,  that  the 
parable  of  the  ten  virgins.  Matt.  xxv.  1 — 12,  is  designed  to  be 
applied.  These  were  all  given  to  him  by  covenant  [Ttpo  xara- 
^olr^^  xoajaoo,  Eph  i.  4;  1  Pet.  i.  20;  and  see  John  xvii.  24) 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world.  In  an  especial  sense  they 
are  his  purchased  possession.  Eph.  i.  14.  They  constitute  an 
accession  of  accumulated  glory  to  him,  in  compensation,  so  to 
speak,  for  the  immense  cost  of  the  Divine  achievement  of 
redemption.  Isa.  liii.  11.  Their  inheritance  is  a  co-heirship  of 
all  things  with  Christ.  1  Cor.  iii.  21,  23;  Rev.  xxi.  7;  Rom. 
viii.  17,  29,  30. 

Different  widely  from  these  are  those  of  the  judged  nations, 
whom,  at  the  day  of  his  coming,  he  shall  set  at  his  right  hand. 
They  are  called  to  inherit  a  kingdom  prepared  for  them  in  this 
world  {drro  xaza^ohji;  xoa/iou)  from  (not  before)  the  foundation 
thereof.* 

These  considerations  might  be  enforced  by  others  derived 
from  the  expressed  grounds  of  approval  and  reprobation.  "  I 
was  an  hungered  and  ye  gave  me  meat,"  etc.,  verse  35,  "I  was 
an  hungered  and  ye  gave  me  no  meat,"  etc.,  verse  42.     It  is  a 

*  The  attention  of  the  critical  reader  is  called  to  the  distinction  between 
these  two  phrases,  utto  KaT«/3(iX«f  Jt'jo-jucu,  found  in  Matt.  xiii.  35;  xxv.  34;  Luke 
xi.  50;  Heb.  iv,  3;  ix.  2G;  Rev.  xiii.  8;  xvii.  8,  and  nfo  x.at'J.^okh; k'.<j-/j.cv,  found 
in  John  xvii.  24;  Eph.  i.  4;  1  Pet.  i.  20.  That  they  are  not  eijuivalent  no 
scholar  can  doubt.  That  the  latter  expression  is  applied  in  these  places  only 
to  the  elect  Chui'ch,  or  that  kingdom  of  kings  and  priests,  whom  it  is  the  pur- 
pose of  God  to  substitute  in  the  place  of  Israel,  according  to  the  flesh,  under 
the  covenant  of  Horeb,  will  be  obvious  to  any  one  who  reads  these  passages, 
while  the  former,  in  the  place  now  under  consideration,  may  be  regarded  as 
exegetical  of  Ps.  cxv.  16  (latter  clause)  and  of  Dan.  vii.  27.  And  the  ajttaess 
of  the  expression  consists  in  this:  that  the  designed  use  of  the  world,  even  in 
the  mind  of  the  Creator,  may  be  properly  said  to  concur  in  point  of  time  with 
its  origin  or  foundation. 


326  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

judgment  founded  simply  on  works  of  mercy;  not  on  faitli,  and 
whatever  else  may  be  represented  or  intended  by  the  oil  in  the 
virgins'  lamps.  Matt.  xxv.  3,  4.  But  our  object  at  present  is 
not  an  exposition  of  the  passage,  but  to  indicate  what  appear 
to  be  sufficient  reasons  for  the  foregoing  distribution  of  the 
discourse. 

If  it  should  be  said  that  the  reward  conferred  is  eternal  life, 
it  would  not  follow  from  that,  that  those  thus  rewarded  are 
aggregated  to  that  elect  body  or  kingdom  of  kings  and  priests 
before  mentioned.  The  Lord  can  bestow  the  one  without  the 
other.  See  verses  14 — 23;  Luke.xix.  15 — 19.  But  we  pre- 
sume not  to  speculate  on  questions  which  belong  only  to  the 
Divine  disposal ;  feeling  assured  that  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth 
is  not  straitened  either  in  his  wisdom  or  power  to  accomplish 
whatever  he  has  proposed  or  pleases.  The  exigencies  of  crea- 
tion are  infinitely  more  various  and  vast  than  any  finite  mind 
can  conceive.  Yet  the  wisdom  and  power  of  God  provide  per- 
fectly for  them  all,  and  for  each  in  its  time. 

V.  The  attention  of  the  reader  is  now  recalled  to  the  ques- 
tions of  the  disciples,  Matt.  xxiv.  3,  "  Tell  us  when  shall  these 
things  be,  and  what  shall  be  the  sign  of  thy  coming,"  (r-^c  <73yc 
TzapooacaQ^)  etc.  They  undoubtedly,  by  intention,  referred  to 
his  coming  or  return  to  Jerusalem  as  Messiah.  The  only  part 
of  our  Lord's  discourse  which  is  applicable  to  this  question, 
considered  witli  that  intent,  is  the  parable  of  the  ten  virgins  and 
the  advent  of  the  bridegroom;  but  of  this  he  gives  no  sign. 
The  only  note  of  the  time  is  contained  in  the  word  (rore)  then, 
Matt.  xxv.  1 — "  Then  shall  the  kingdom  of  heaven  be  likened 
unto  ten  virgins,"  etc.  This  word  may  refer  to  the  end  of  the 
period  of  Jerusalem's  desolation.  We  may,  perhaps,  say  with 
confidence,  that  it  does  refer  to  the  time  when  the  whole  body 
of  the  elect  Church  given  to  Christ  shall  have  been  completed. 
See  John  xvii.  9;  Luke  xviii.  8.  In  giving  the  disciples  this 
parable,  our  Lord,  it  is  probable,  tacitly  alluded  to  the  parable 
of  the  marriage.  Matt.  xxii.  1 — 8,  which  they  had,  not  long 
before,  heard  him  publicly  deliver  in  the  temple.  As  if  he  had 
said,  No'W,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  a  certain  king,  who 
invited  many  to  the  marriage  festival  of  his  son,  and  none  of 
those  invited  were  willing  or  worthy  to  come.  But  then  it  will 
be  quite  otherwise.  For  then  the  kingdom  of  heaven  shall  be 
like  a  bridegroom  returning  with  his  bride  (see  Codex  Bezce,) 
when  many  will  be  willing,  and  more  than  are  worthy,  to  come 
and  enter  in  to  the  marriage. 

As  observed  before,  this  parable,  with  the  preceding  context, 
(from  Matt.  xxiv.  32,)  and  the  succeeding,  (to  xxv.  30,  inclu- 
sive,) may  be  regarded  as  parenthetical,  if  considered  relatively 


CHRIST'S   KINGDOM.  327 

to  the  ivTiole  thread  of  the  discourse.  But,  however  this  may 
be,  the  whole  of  this  passage  refers  to  the  Church,  or  to  the 
company  called  and  collected  by  the  servants  of  the  king,  on 
their  third  mission,  Matt.  xxii.  9 — 14 ;  see  xxi.  43,  and  notes, 
and  not  to  the  masses  of  the  nations.  This  parable  and  that 
■which  follows,  XXV.  14 — 30,  relate  to  our  Lord  in  his  Messianic 
character  or  relation,  and  to  his  kingdom  as  Messiah — not  to 
his  Adamic  relations  or  his  kingdom  as  the  Son  of  Man.  Com- 
pare the  qualifications  essential  for  admission  into  our  Lord's 
kingdom  as  Messiah,  with  the  grounds  of  his  judgment  of  the 
nations  of  the  earth  as  the  Son  of  Man.  In  the  former,  each 
must  wear  the  wedding  garment,  (xxiv.  11,  12,)  each  virgin 
must  have  oil  in  her  lamp,  (xxv.  3,  4,)  each  servant  must  have 
performed  service  in  the  faithful  use  of  the  talents  committed  to 
him,  (xxv.  20 — 30.)  In  the  latter  case,  however,  the  blessed 
of  the  Father  are  blessed,  and  inherit  the  kingdom  frefared 
for  them,  on  the  ground  of  their  works  of  mercy,  (xxv.  34 — 40,) 
and  the  cursed  are  cursed,  because  they  performed  no  such 
works,  (xxv.  41 — 46.) 

Let  no  one  pervert  this  rule  of  judgment  by  applying  it  to 
the  present  dispensation  or  order  of  things.  It  belongs  to  a 
future  one.  The  present  dispensation  has  for  its  end  the  most 
glorious  purposes.  The  highest  privileges  and  the  greatest 
responsibilities  are  cast  upon  all  to  whom  the  gospel  is  preached, 
see  notes  on  Matt.  xvii.  22,  23,  and  the  rule  of  judgment  is 
suited  to  this  condition.  The  man  without  the  wedding  gar- 
ment. Matt.  xxii.  12,  13,  and  the  merely  unprofitable  servant 
(xxv.  30)  are  cast  into  outer  darkness,  and  the  virgin  without 
oil  in  her  lamp  will  find  no  admission  to  the  marriage.  Matt, 
xxv.  10.     See  Gal.  vi.  7. 

VI.  Another  observation  upon  the  whole  prophecy  is,  that 
no  chronological  note,  by  which  the  times  of  any  of  the  events 
discoursfd  upon  by  the  Saviour  can  be  determined,  is  given  by 
him.  None  of  the  periods  before  mentioned,  nor  the  intervals, 
if  any,  between  them,  are  chronologically  defined.  Even  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the  nearest  of  the  events  spoken  of, 
was  foretokened  by  a  providential  event  which  did  not  occur 
within  the  life-time  of  three  of  the  disciples  the  Saviour  per- 
sonally addressed.  The  same  general  remark  is  applicable  to 
the  second  period,  considered  either  as  the  period  of  the  deso- 
lation of  Jerusalem,  or  as  that  appointed  for  the  calling  and 
completing  of  that  elect  nation  to  be  substituted  in  the  place  of 
Israel,  Matt.  xxi.  43,  and  notes,  viz.  the  Church  of  Christ. 

During  this  period  the  Jewish  Commonwealth  is  represented 
as  a  carcass,  a  symbol  which  excludes  the  idea  of  a  chronology. 
Luke,  though  he   uses  plain  language,  gives  us  no  means  of 


328  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

ascertaining  the  number  of  the  days  of  vengeance,  or  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  times  of  the  Gentiles.  But  if  we  consider  this 
period  as  that  appointed  for  the  formation  of  the  Church,  (notes 
on  Matt.  xxi.  43,)  the  continuance  of  it  must  be  commensurate 
with  that  work,  and  the  lapses  of  it  are  to  be  measured  upon 
its  progress — in  other  words,  by  the  hidden  operations  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  From  age  to  age  the  spiritual  building  has  been 
advancing  towards  its  completion,  but  who  can  estimate  how 
much  has  been  done,  or  how  much  remains  to  be  done?  The 
inquiry  touches  upon  the  covenant  of  redemption  between 
the  Father  and  the  Son — a  mystery  far  beyond  the  ken  of 
creatures.  Isaiah  liii.  11;  John  xvii.  2 — 9;  Rev.  vii.  9.  If  the 
reader  will  consider  the  greatness  and  glory  of  the  purposes  to 
be  accomplished  during  this  period,  Eph.  iii.  10;  1  Pet.  i.  12; 
Eph.  i.  21 — 23,  he  will  not  marvel  at  the  length  to  which  it  has 
already  run,  nor  will  he  confidently  expect  its  speedy  termina- 
tion; yet  in  obedience  to  the  Saviour's  express  command  he 
will  ever  be  watching  for  it.  Matt.  xxiv.  42;  xxv.  13. 

We  leave  it  to  the  reader  to  pursue  the  investigation  through 
the  two  remaining  periods.  He  will  find  nothing  which  con- 
flicts with  the  observation  at  the  beginning  of  this  paragraph. 
The  prophecy  corresponds  in  this  respect  with  our  Lord's 
express  teachings,  whenever  he  was  inquired  of  concerning  the 
times,  Acts  i.  7,  and  is  in  harmony  with  the  ancient  prophecies 
concerning  the  advent  of  Messiah. 

VII.  One  observation  more:  The  Revelation  of  St,  John 
may  be  regarded  as  a  symbolical  explanation  of  this  prophecy 
or  of  the  principal  parts  of  it.  Certainly  both  stretch  forward 
into  the  same  distant  futurity,  and  may  reasonably  be  supposed 
to  have  at  least  some  points  of  coincidence.  We  doubt  not 
that  light  would  be  thrown  upon  each,  by  a  comparison  with 
the  other.  It  is  remarkable,  though  the  writer  does  not 
remember  to  have  seen  it  remarked  by  others,  that  the  apostle 
records  his  visions  under  four  symbolical  captions  or  headings 
purporting  to  be  the  medium  through  which  he  received  them. 
These  may  be  designed  to  parcel  or  distribute  the  matters  of 
the  prophecy  to  distinct  subjects,  and  also  to  denote  lesser 
epochs,  or  different  and  perhaps  successive  stages  in  the  pro- 
gress of  the  Divine  administration.  Thus  in  Rev.  iv.  1,  John 
saw  a  door  opened  in  heaven,  and  certain  visions  followed.  In 
Rev.  xi.  19,  the  scene  is  changed — The  temple  of  God  is  opened 
in  heaven.  Afterwards,  xv.  5,  T-he  temple  of  the  tabernacle  of 
the  testimony  in  heaven  was  opened.  And  finally,  xix.  11,  he 
saw  heaven  opened.  Do  these  divisions  or  partitions  correspond 
to  any  extent  with  the  four  periods  under  which  we  have  con- 
sidered our  Lord's  prophecy?     We  do  not  affirm  it — we  only 


THE   PROPHECY   RELATES   TO   THIS   AVORLD.  329 

suggest  the  question,  but  with  great  diffidence,  to  the  consider- 
ation of  the  learned  reader;  and  we  do  it  because  every  coin- 
cidence between  writings  so  important,  and  so  difficult  to  be 
understood,  is  worthy  of  serious  consideration.  Light  may 
break  in  from  a  quarter  we  do  not  anticipate. 

From  the  foregoing  analysis,  it  appears  that  the  great  sub- 
ject of  this  wonderful  prophecy  is  the  way  of  Providence  over 
this  world  and  the  nations  thereof,  from  the  rejection  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  by  the  Jewish  nation,  until  the  final  settlement  of 
all  things  earthly  under  his  Headship  as  the  Son  of  Man. 
See  1  Cor.  xv.  24,  25;  Heb.  ii.  8.  The  fortunes  of  the  Church 
are  not  distinctly  or  directly  brought  into  view.  For  these  we 
must  turn  to  the  Revelation  of  St.  John,  and  other  parts  of  the 
sacred  volume.  The  admonitions  and  cautions  of  the  Lord,  and 
the  similitudes  in  chapter  xxv.  are  digressive  from  the  main 
purpose;  and  designed  as  personal  warnings  to  his  followers; 
supplying  rules  and  motives  for  each  and  all  in  every  age, 
until  he  should  come  as  the  bridegroom  to  receive  them.  Of 
this  event  he  gives  them  a  sign — "the  sign  of  the  Son  of  Man 
in  heaven"— which  we  suppose  will  precede  his  actual  appear- 
ance.* Having  enforced  his  command  and  cautions  by  two 
impressive  parables,  he  resumes  the  great  line  of  vision,  and 
pili'sues  it  to  the  end,  when  all  rule,  and  all  authority  and 
power  adverse  to  him  shall  have  been  subdued,  and  he  alone  be 
acknowledged  and  obeyed  as  the  King  of  the  kings  and  the 
Lord  of  the  lords  of  the  world. 

That  this  judgment  of  the  nations  will  not  occur  till  after  the 
millennium  may  be  assumed,  Rev.  xx.  1 — 10,  as  the  power  of 
the  devil,  over  the  earth  and  the  nations,  will  then  have  been 
finally  and  for  ever  destroyed.  But,  relatively  to  the  time  of 
judgment  of  the  dead,  Rev.  xx.  11 — 15,  which  is  represented 
as  a  distinct  act  of  judgment,  we  have  no  data  for  any  con- 
clusion. Perhaps,  however,  we  should  not  err  in  supposing 
that  (ra  idv/j  rwv  oco^ofieucou)  the  nations  of  saved  men  spoken 
of  in  Rev.  xxi.  24,  are  the  same  as  those  which  will  be  wel- 
comed by  the  Son  of  Man  into  the  kingdom  prepared  for  them 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world.     Matt.  xxv.  34. 

*  The  especial  significancy  of  this  expression  is  to  be  sought  for,  as  we  con- 
jecture, in  the  parable  of  the  ten  virgins.  It  is  the  signal  for  the  cry,  "  Behold, 
the  Bridegroom  cometh."  The  reason  for  this  conjecture,  is  that  Marie  and 
Luke  omit  it,  as  well  as  the  parable. 

42 


330  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 


CHAPTER    IX. 

THE   CRUCIFIXION. 

First  step  in  the  proceedings  against  the  Lord  Jesus. — Jews'  acknowledgment 
that  they  were  a  subject  people. — Charges  against  Jesus. — Colloquy  between 
Christ  and  Pilate. — Pilate's  public  acquittal  of  the  Lord  Jesus. — Pilate  moved 
to  dismiss  the  case  to  Herod. — Jesus'  appearance  before  Herod. — Herod's 
questions. — Christ's  silence. — Herod  declines  jurisdiction. — The  fulfilment  of 
the  second  Psalm. 

John  xviii.  29.  "Pilate  then  went  out  unto  them  and  said, 
"What  accusation  bring  ye  against  this  man?" 

This  was  the  first  step  in  the  proceedings  against  the  Lord 
Jesus  before  Pontius  Pilate.  The  place  was  the  Prcetorium, 
or  the  place  of  Pilate's  residence  when  at  Jerusalem.  Among 
the  Romans,  every  magistrate  who  had  a  military  command 
was  invested  with  Praetorian  power.  (  Varro  de  Ling.  Latina^ 
lib.  4;  Lamy,  Harm.)  Such  a  magistrate  was  Pilate,  and  for 
that  reason  his  place  of  residence  was  called  Pratoriuin.  This 
happened  to  be  the  magnificent  palace  formerly  occupied  by 
Herod.  It  had  a  vestibule  or  court,  in  which  a  body  of  troops 
was  constantly  stationed,  as  the  body-guard  of  the  governor. 
There  was  a  colonnade  extending  from  the  palace  to  the  public 
street.  The  common  hall,  spoken  of  in  Matt,  xxvii.  27,  and 
Mark  XV.  16,  was  the  Prsetorium,  and  the  band  of  soldiers 
there  mentioned  was  the  whole  or  a  part  of  the  Praetorian 
Cohort,  which  accompanied  Pilate  to  the  province  of  Judea. 

In  front  of  this  palace  there  was  a  pavement,  probably  some- 
what elevated,  called  in  the  language  of  the  country,  Gabhatha. 
On  this  pavement,  extending  outwards  a  short  distance  from 
the  Prsetorium  or  palace,  was  erected  a  rostrum  or  bench, 
which  was  occupied  by  the  governor  when  transacting  business 
with  the  Jews,  at  least  on  some  occasions.  This  judgment 
seat,  it  is  supposed,  had  a  covering  above  to  protect  the  head, 
though  it  was  open  at  the  sides  for  the  sake  of  the  more  con- 
venient communication  with  those  in  attendance.*  To  this 
place,  the  chief  priests,  the  elders,  the  scribes,  and  the  whole 
multitude  conducted  Jesus  from  their  council,  Luke  xxiii.  1, 
and  it  was  early  on  the  morning  of  Friday  when  they  reached 
it.  John  xviii.  28. 

But  early  as  it  was,  many  things  had  already  been  done 
preparatory  to    the    awful  transaction  which   was  then  to  be 

*  For  a  pictorial  representation  of  the  Pratorium  (Haus  des  Pilatus)  and 
ih^ pavement  (Hochpflaster,)  see  "Das  Biblische  Jerusalem  aus  der  Vogelshau, 
entworfen  und  gezeichnet  von  Adolph  Eltzner,  Leipzig,  1852." 


THE   CRUCIFIXION.  331 

commenced.  If  we  turn  to  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  John  vce 
find  the  Saviour  engaged  in  a  most  solemn  and  aflFecting  inter- 
view with  the  twelve  disciples.  After  washing  their  feet,  and 
predicting  again  his  betrayal  by  one  of  their  number,  he  gave 
a  sop  to  Judas,  who  thereupon,  finally  and  for  ever,  separated 
himself  from  their  company.  The  Evangelist  is  particular  to 
note  the  time  of  his  departure,  as  if  to  show  how  quickly  the 
treacherous  design  was  consummated  by  crucifixion.  John 
xiii.  27.  It  was  night  when  Judas  went  out.  The  devil  hav- 
ing entered  into  the  traitor,  he  proceeded  forthwith  to  the 
chief  priests,  and  having  received  from  them  a  band  of  men 
and  officers,  John  xviii.  2,  went  thence  to  the  garden  of  Gethse- 
mane.  The  Lord  Jesus  having  surrendered  himself  to  them, 
they  took  him  first  to  Annas.  John  xviii.  13.  It  is  supposed 
the  apprehension  took  place  about  ten  o'clock  at  night,  accord- 
ing to  our  manner  of  reckoning.  Annas  sent  him  to  the  house 
of  his  son-in-law  Caiaphas,  the  high  priest.  John  xviii.  24.  It 
is  supposed  this  occurred  about  eleven  o'clock  at  night.  At 
this  place  he  was  detained  until  the  Sanhedrim  met,  which 
was  as  soon  as  it  was  day-dawn — or  about  four  o'clock  in  the 
morning.  About  five  o'clock,  while  it  was  still  early,  they  led 
him  to  Pilate. 

While  thus  detained,  he  was  twice  condemned,  once  by  the 
high  priest  soon  after  midnight,  and  again  by  the  Sanhedrim, 
about  four  hours  afterwards.  This  done,  they  proceeded 
thence  soon  afterwards  to  the  Prfetorium,  or  the  Palace  of 
Pilate,  before  mentioned,  to  obtain  from  him  a  confirmation 
of  their  unjust  sentence.  The  unseasonable  hour  shows  the 
urgency  of  the  rulers,  and  their  fear  of  a  rescue  by  the  people. 

The  priests,  elders,  scribes,  and  all  the  Jews  stopped  at  the 
judgment  seat,  upon  the  pavement  outside  of  the  Pr?etorium, 
because  by  entering  into  the  palace  of  the  Roman  governor 
they  would  contract  ceremonial  defilement.  Numb.  xix.  22 ; 
Acts  X.  28,  while  the  soldiers  went  forward  with  their  prisoner 
into  the  hall  of  the  palace  itself,  where  Pilate  was.  Mark 
XV.  16.  Pilate  having  been  thus  suddenly,  and  perhaps  unex- 
pectedly, broken  in  upon,  probably  before  the  usual  hour  to 
commence  the  transaction  of  business,  and  being  informed  that 
his  judgment  seat  was  thronged  by  a  multitude,  headed  by  the 
chief  dignitaries  of  the  nation ;  and  learning  from  the  soldiers, 
probably,  that  the  person  they  had  brought  into  the  hall  of  the 
Prastorium  was  charged  with  some  criminal  off"ence,  went  out 
to  inquire  into  the  nature  of  it.  This  was  Pilate's  first  step  in 
the  business. 

The  question  of  Pilate  was  a  very  proper  one  for  a  judge  to 
put,  when  entering  on  a  judicial  investigation.     It  is  evident, 


332  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

however,  from  the  course  this  proceeding  took,  that  Pilate  did 
not  think  it  necessary  to  proceed  with  much  formality.  It 
seems  that  he  did  not  even  expect  an  accusation  in  writing.  A 
verbal  answer,  specifying  the  offence,  was  all  that  he  required. 
We  have  an  example  of  a  proceeding  before  another  Koman 
governor,  a  few  years  later,  in  a  different  province,  which  we 
should  consider  not  merely  summary,  but  very  irregular.  Acts 
xviii.  12 — 17.  At  Rome,  where  the  laAVS  were  enforced  with  a 
proper  regard  to  the  rights  of  citizens,  proceedings  were  con- 
ducted with  great  formality.  Any  citizen  had  the  right  to 
bring  an  accusation  against  another;  but  to  do  this  properly, 
and  in  due  form,  he  must  appear  before  the  Prsetor,  and  ask 
authority  to  accuse  some  person,  whom  he  named,  and  at  the 
same  time,  take  an  oath  that  he  was  not  influenced  by  motives 
of  calumny,  but  that  he  acted  in  good  faith  and  for  the  public 
good.  The  Praetor  drew  up  this  declaration,  which  at  first  was 
made  to  him  verbally,  but  afterwards  in  writing.  This  demand 
of  the  accuser  was  posted  up  in  the  Forum  a  certain  number  of 
days  before  he  could  proceed,  in  order  to  make  known  publicly 
the  names  both  of  the  accuser  and  the  accused,  and  to  allow 
others  to  join  in  the  accusation,  or  to  dispute  it.  After  that, 
the  accuser  appeared  again  before  the  Praetor,  and,  if  it 
appeai'ed  proper,  he  was  then  allowed  to  denounce  ofiicially  the 
name  of  the  person,  and  the  crime  of  which  he  accused  him, 
stating  with  precision  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  which  he 
subscribed.  After  some  other  formalities  were  gone  through 
with,  a  day  was  fixed  for  the  trial,  when  the  accuser,  the 
ac(rused,  and  the  judges  were  summoned  by  the  herald  of  the 
Praetor,  and  the  trial  was  commenced.  Brown  s  Antiq.,  470, 
471. 

Such,  briefly,  was  the  care  the  Roman  laws  took  of  the 
liberties  of  their  own  citizens.  How  entirely  were  they  disre- 
garded in  this  province  of  the  Roman  Empire,  when  the  Prince 
of  Life  was  tumultuously  arrested  and  dragged  to  the  tribunal 
of  Pilate!  It  was  not  the  custom,  however,  of  the  Romans  to 
treat  the  people  they  had  conquered  with  the  same  considera- 
tion as  their  own  citizens,  either  in  respect  to  the  forms  of  jus- 
tice, or  the  punishment  they  inflicted.  See  Acts  xxii.  25. 
Hence  it  was  that  Paul  claimed  the  privilege  of  his  Roman 
citizenship,  when  he  was  about  to  be  scourged  for  no  crime,  in 
condescension  to  the  malicious  clamour  of  the  Jews.  Hence, 
too,  he  claimed  his  privilege  of  appeal  to  Caesar,  which  belonged 
to  him,  not  as  a  subject,  but  as  a  citizen  of  RomB.  Acts 
XXV.  10.  Yet  Pilate's  sense  of  justice,  and  of  the  duties  of 
his  office,  prompted  him  to  demand  the  particular  accusation. 
The  answer  the  Jews  returned  was  a  mere  evasion.    He  wished 


THE   CRUCIFIXION.  333 

to  know  tlie  particular  crime.  Jolin  xviii.  30.  "They  ansAvered 
and  said  unto  him,  If  he  were  not  a  malefactor,  we  would  not 
have  delivered  him  unto  thee."  This  answer  was  probably 
delivered  by  the  high  priest,  or  by  some  high  dignitary  of  the 
nation.  It  carries  with  it  an  air  of  offended  pride,  as  if  it  were 
derogatory  to  answer  such  a  question,  "/f  he  were  not  a 
malefactor,  we,  the  high  priests  and  elders  of  the  nation,  cer- 
tainly should  not  have  taken  the  trouble  to  appear  before  you, 
whatever  others  might  have  done.  We  have  too  high  a  sense 
of  justice,  and  of  what  is  due  to  ourselves  and  to  others,  to 
deliver  an  innocent  man  to  you.  It  may  be  proper  for  you  to 
put  such  a  question  to  others,  but  not  to  us,  who  would  not 
have  approached  your  tribunal  in  person  at  any  time  in  the 
case  of  an  ordinary  offender,  and  much  less  at  so  early  an  hour, 
or  upon  the  near  approach  of  a  solemn  festival." 

Their  answer  was  hardly  respectful :  for  however  superior  to 
Pilate  they  may  have  been  in  true  knowledge,  he  was  their 
governor,  and  they  were  the  subjects  of  those  laws  which  they 
called  upon  him  to  administer.  He  had  a  right  to  the  infor- 
mation which  he  required,  and  their  answer  implied  a  demand 
on  their  part,  that  he  should  blindly  execute  their  wishes, 
without  inquiry.  But  by  their  own  laws  no  man  could  be 
rightfully  condemned  without  a  hearing  and  an  inquiry  into 
his  conduct.  John  vii.  51.  Yet  they  expected  that  Pilate 
would  proceed  contrary  to  this  rule;  for  it  does  not  appear 
that  they  informed  him  of  their  own  midnight  proceedings. 
Perhaps  they  were  ashamed  to  do  so ;  or,  if  not,  they  feared 
these  proceedings  would  reveal  their  malice. 

It  is  evident  from  the  rejoinder  of  Pilate,  that  he  considered 
their  answer  a  disrespectful  evasion  of  a  proper  question.  It 
indicated  also,  very  clearly,  his  purpose  not  to  be  put  off  in  that 
way.  From  what  we  know  of  Pilate's  character,  it  would  not 
be  too  much  to  say,  that  his  answer  was  a  fling  at  the  dignity 
assumed  by  the  spokesman  of  the  company,  as  if  he  had  said, 
"  Oh,  well,  if  it  be  so,  then  you  have  no  occasion  for  my  judg- 
ment in  the  matter;  you  can  take  him  away  from  my  tribunal, 
John  xviii.  31,  and  judge  him  according  to  your  law.  You 
have  your  own  laws,  your  own  tribunals,  and  your  own  judges; 
and  as  you  appear  to  have  made  up  your  minds  upon  the 
guilt  of  this  person,  there  is  no  doubt  good  reason,  at  least 
in  your  judgment,  why  you  should  proceed  in  that  way;  but 
without  an  accusation  you  must  not  expect  me  to  act  in  the 
business." 

The  reply,  whatever  its  import,  drew  from  them  a  humiliating 
confession.  As  a  nation  they  were  proud  of  their  privileges. 
The  idea  of  bondage  or  subjection  to  a  foreign  power  was  gall- 


334  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

ing.  "We  be  Abraham's  seed,  and  never  were  in  bondage  to 
any  man."  John  viii.  33.  But  the  resolution  taken  by  Pilate 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  enmity  they  cherished  to  the  Lord 
Jesus  on  the  other,  forced  from  them,  twice,  during  this  pro- 
ceeding, see  John  xviii.  31,  and  xix,  15,  the  acknowledgment 
that  they  were  a  subject  people,  and  obliged  to  yield  obedience 
to  laws  not  their  own.     They  said, 

John  xviii.  31.  "It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to  put  any  one  to 
death." 

Pilate  knew  that  fact  as  well  as  they.  He  knew  also,  that 
except  in  cases  of  capital  punishment,  they  had  no  occasion  to 
consult  him,  or  ask  his  authority  for  the  execution  of  their  own 
decrees,  and  the  fact  of  their  appearing  before  him  with  their 
prisoner,  showed  that  it  was  a  condemnation  to  death  which 
they  required.     For  this  they  were  obliged  to  ask  his  consent. 

Josephus,  the  Jewish  historian,  informs  us,  Antiq.  book  xx. 
chap.  6,  that  the  Jews  were  deprived  of  the  authority  to  decree 
the  punishment  of  death  about  forty  years  before  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  that  is,  about  the  year  A.  d.  30.  According  to 
others,  they  were  deprived  of  that  power  near  the  end  of  the 
reign  of  Augustus,  which  was  about  fifteen  years  earlier  than 
the  time  fixed  by  Josephus.  There  was  a  providential  design 
to  be  accomplished  by  this  change  in  the  Jewish  state,  as  is 
evident  by  the  remark  of  the  Evangelist  upon  this  response  of 
the  Jews.  For  he  observes  that  through  or  by  means  of  their 
subjection  to  the  Romans,  and  this  diminution  of  their  power, 
(for  such  is  the  connection  between  the  last  clause  of  the  31st 
and  the  32d  verse,)  it  came  to  pass  that, 

John  xviii.  32.  "The  saying  of  Jesus  was  fulfilled,  signi- 
fying by  what  death  he  should  die." 

The  saying  to  which  the  Evangelist  especially  refers,  is 
recorded.  Matt.  xx.  19 ;  see  also  Matt.  xvi.  21 ;  xvii,  22,  23 ; 
Mark  viii.  31;  ix.  31;  x.  33,  34;  Luke  ix.  22—44;  xviii. 
31 — 34.  Crucifixion  was  not  a  punishment  appointed  by  the 
law  of  Moses,  and  there  is  no  example  of  this  punishment 
inflicted  by  the  Jews  upon  those  they  condemned  to  death. 
Yet  in  the  passage  just  cited  from  Matthew,  the  Lord  foretold 
the  whole  course  of  the  proceedings  which  would  be  had 
against  him.  "Behold  we  go  up  to  Jerusalem,  and  the  Son  of 
Man  shall  be  betrayed  unto  the  chief  priests  and  unto  the 
scribes,  and  they  shall  condemn  him  to  death ;  and  they  shall 
deliver  him  to  the  Gentiles  to -mock  and  to  scourge  and  to 
crucify y  and  the  third  day  he  shall  rise  again." 

The  manner  of  his  death,  he  foretold,  would  not  be  that 
which  was  appointed  by  the  Jewish  law — stoning — but  by  a 
Gentile  punishment ;    and  in  accordance  with  this  Divine  pur- 


THE    CRUCIFIXION.  335 

pose,  he  foretold  that  he  should  be  delivered  to  the  Gentiles. 
In  order  to  the  fulfilment  of  this  prophetic  declaration,  it  was 
necessary  that  Pilate  should  take  cognizance  of  the  accusation, 
and  should  proceed  to  inflict  a  punishment  appointed  by  the 
laws  of  Rome.  But  there  was  also  a  reason  for  the  prediction, 
which  should  also  be  pointed  out.  Although  crucifixion  was  a 
cruel  and  ignominious  punishment,  inflicted  by  the  Cartha- 
ginians upon  prisoners  of  war  and  their  own  citizens  of  the 
highest  rank,  but  by  the  Romans  only  on  slaves  and  such 
inferior  persons  as  were  guilty  of  atrocious  crimes,  yet  it  did 
not  destroy  the  bodily  organs,  crush  the  flesh,  or  break  the 
bones  of  the  victim,  as  death  by  stoning 'did.  It  is  true  that 
in  order  to  increase  the  suff'ering,  or  perhaps  to  hasten  the 
death  of  the  criminal,  the  executioners  sometimes  broke  his 
legs,  John  xix,  32,  but  this  was  not  necessarily  a  part  of  the 
punishment.  Nor  was  it  permitted  in  the  case  of  the  Saviour, 
John  xix.  33;  for  he  was  the  antitype  of  the  paschal  lamb, 
Exod.  xii.  46;  Numb.  ix.  12;  Ps.  xxxiv.  20,  and  a  bone  of 
him  could  not  be  broken. 

Whether  this  avowal  or  reply  of  the  Jews  was  intended  to 
change  the  purpose  of  Pilate  we  need  not  inquire.  It  was, 
indeed,  a  sufficient  reason  why  they  should  bring  their  prisoner 
before  him,  but  no  reason  why  Pilate  should  disregard,  not 
only  the  forms  but  the  rules  also  of  justice.  The  Jews,  per- 
ceiving that  Pilate  continued  firm,  proceeded  to  make  an 
accusation  in  the  form  required;  but  for  this  we  must  now  turn 
to  the  Gospel  by  Luke  xxiii.  2. 

We  have  frequent  occasions  to  observe  how  admirably  the 
Evangelists  supply  the  omissions  of  each  other,  and  how 
necessary  it  is  to  take  them  altogether,  in  order  to  make  out  a 
full  and  connected  narrative.  Matthew  and  Mark  give  but 
brief  notices  of  the  proceedings  before  Pilate,  and  Matthew 
alone  relates  the  message  the  wife  of  Pilate  sent  to  him,  while 
he  sat  on  the  judgment  seat.  Luke  informs  us  of  what  took 
place  before  Herod,  while  John  relates  more  minutely  what 
passed,  as  we  may  say,  privately,  between  our  Lord  and  Pilate. 
We  will  take  them  altogether  in  the  order  of  the  occurrences, 
and  thus  endeavour  to  get  a  clear  idea  of  the  whole  proceeding. 
We  come  now  to  the  accusation  made  in  compliance  with 
Pilate's  demand: 

Luke  xxiii.  2.  "We  found  this  man  [said  they]  perverting 
the  nation — forbidding  to  give  tribute  to  Caesar — saying.  That 
he  himself  is  Christ — a  king." 

Here  are  three  distinct  charges: — "We  found  this  man." 
It  is  not  quite  agreed  what  they  meant  by  "found."  They 
may  have  meant  to  be  understood  that  they  had  cauglit  or 


336  NOTES   ON  SCRIPTURE. 

arrested  him  in  the  act  of  sedition  and  opposition  to  the 
government.  Or  they  may  have  used  the  word  in  a  judicial 
sense,  as  when  we  say  a  jury  has  found  a  man  guilty  of  an 
offence  charged  against  him.  But  in  either  of  these  senses  the 
accusation  was  wholly  untrue.  They  arrested  him  by  the  aid 
of  Judas,  during  the  darkness  of  the  night  in  the  garden  of 
Gcthsemane,  where  he  had  retired  to  pray.  Nor  was  the 
charge  true  in  the  other  sense:  because  they  had  found  or 
adjudged  him  guilty  only  of  blasphemy,  Matt.  xxvi.  64 — 66, 
although  what  he  had  said  was  simply  bearing  witness  to  the 
truth,  in  reply  to  the  solemn  adjuration  of  the  high  priest.  But 
leaving  this  matter  for  the  present,  let  us  attend  now  to  the 
particulars  of  the  accusation :  and  first,  they  charge  him  with 
perverting  the  nation. 

Probably  they  intended  by  this  that  he  disturbed  the  peace 
by  attracting  crowds,  and  inculcating  dangerous  or  disloyal 
sentiments.  It  is  most  certainly  true  that  he  was  followed  by 
multitudes  who  were  attracted  by  his  wonderful  wisdom  and 
works.  His  miracles  of  healing  were  almost  without  number; 
a  few  of  which  only  have  been  recorded.  John  xx.  30.  On 
several  occasions  he  fed  thousands  in  desert  places  upon  a  few 
loaves  and  fishes,  and  this  miracle  convinced  those  who  saw  it 
of  his  divine  mission.  John  vi.  14.  His  daily  walk  and  life 
were  truly  described  by  Peter  in  his  address  to  Cornelius,  Acts 
X.  36 — 38 :  "  He  went  about  doing  good,  and  healing  all  that 
were  oppressed  by  the  devil,  and  preaching  peace" — not  dis- 
cord or  rebellion  against  the  Roman  government.  Pilate  must 
have  known  his  course  of  life,  and  this  accusation  could  not 
have  had  any  influence  upon  him.  It  is  also  true  that  he 
denounced  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  for  their  hypocrisy,  and 
declared  to  them  plainly  the  consequences  of  their  wicked  con- 
duct, and  this  it  was  that  offended  them.  But  it  was  not  a  mat- 
ter of  which  the  Roman  governor  could  take  cognizance. 

Secondly:  They  charged  him  with  opposing  the  Roman  gov- 
ernment, by  forbidding  the  payment  of  tribute.  Had  he  done 
so,  he  would  have  acted  strictly  in  accordance  with  their  own 
wishes.  They  were  expecting  a  Messiah,  by  whom  they  be- 
lieved the  Roman  empire  would  be  overturned.  If  they  had 
had  the  ability,  they  would  have  gladly  shaken  off  the  Roman 
power  themselves  at  the  very  time  they  were  making  this  accu- 
sation. But  much  as  they  hated  the  yoke  of  the  Romans,  they 
hated  the  Lord  Jesus  still  more.  - 

It  is  true  also,  that  they  had  endeavoured  to  ensnare  him 
into  an  answer  which  would  have  affected  his  influence  with 
the  people,  or  exposed  him  to  this  accusation.  But  he,  per- 
ceiving their  hypocrisy,  exposed  it,  and  left  them  to  answer 


THE   CRUCIFIXION.  337 

their  question  themselves.    It  is  worth  while  to  dwell  a  moment 
on   this  incident,   which  is   recorded  in  Matt.  xxii.    16 — 22 ; 
Mark  xii.  13 — 17;  Luke  xx.  19 — 25.     The  chief  priests  and 
scribes  being  provoked  by  his  parable  of  the  husbandman  and 
his  vineyard,  Luke  xx.  9 — 18 ;    Matt.  xxi.  33 — 46,  resolved  to 
entrap  him  by  a  question  of  politics,  which  addressed  itself  very 
forcibly  to  the  popular  mind,  and  peihaps  caused  the  Roman 
government  some  trouble.     They  selected  some   artful  person 
out  of  their  own  followers,  to  whom  they  joined  Herodians,  and 
sent  them  as  spies.     They  were  instructed  to  feign  themselves 
to  be  just  men,  and  by  words  of  deference  and  flattery  to  entrap 
him  into  an  imprudent  expression  of  his  opinion.     The  ques- 
tion turned  upon  the  obligation  of  the  people  to  pay  tribute  to 
the  Romans,  their  conquerors.     It  was  very  artfully  chosen. 
For    either   an   aflfirmative    or    negative  response  would   have 
answered   their   purpose.     If  he  had  replied  simply,    Yes,   it 
would  have  affected  his  popularity  with   the    people,  and  ex- 
posed him  to  prosecution  under  their  own  laws,  or  if  not,  ena- 
bled them,  as  in  the  case  of  Stephen,  Acts  vi,  13,  to  destroy 
him  by  a  popular  tumult.     If,  on  the  other  hand,  he  replied 
simply,  No,  we  can  see  by  this  very  accusation  the  use  they 
would  have  made  of  it.     Our  Lord  really  refused  to  meddle 
with  it  or  answer  it  at  all,  it  being  a  question  of  worldly  politics 
with  which  it  was  not  his  purpose  at  that  time  to  intermeddle. 
By  making  them  produce  one  of  the  kind  of  coins  they  were 
required  to  pay  as  tribute,  which  was  a  token  of  their  subject 
condition,  he  told  them  to  render  to  the  powers  that  be  the 
things  which  they  have  the  right  to  exact,  and  to  God  the 
duties  they  owed  to  him,  and  of  this  they  were  to  judge  for 
themselves.     Yet  this  answer  they  perverted  into  the  accusa- 
tion before  mentioned.     If  we  turn  to  Rom.  xiii.  1 — 8,  we  find 
a  clear  exposition   of  our    Saviour's  doctrine  on  this  subject. 
Though  he  was  and  is  the  Ruler  and  Judge  of  all,  yet  he  re- 
fused to  decide  a  question  of  property  between  two  brethren. 
"Man,  who  made  me  a  judge  or  a  divider  over  you?"  Luke 
xii.  13,  14.  • 

Let  us  now  pass  to  the  third  head  of  accusation — "saying 
that  he  himself  is  Christ  (that  is)  a  king."  This  accusation  is 
appended  very  artfully  to  the  one  just  considered.  They  repre- 
sent it  as  the  reason  why  the  people  should  not  pay  tribute  t,o 
Caesar;  thereby  insinuating  that  he  and  not  Caesar  was  entitled 
to  demand  tribute.  As  if  they  had  said,  "We  found  this  man 
perverting  the  nation,  and  telling  the  people  publicly  that  he 
was  their  Messiah  or  Christ,  and  therefore  their  rightful  king, 
and  that  they  ought  to  pay  him  tribute,  not  Caesar." 

This  is  what  they  intended  Pilate  should  understand  by  the 
43 


338  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

accusation.  In  point  of  fact,  however,  he  never  had  publicly 
given  himself  out  as  the  Christ  or  Messiah,  as  we  can  easily 
prove  from  the  Gospel  histories.  So  far  from  the  truth  was 
this  charge,  that  they  knew  not  a  witness  by  whom  they  could 
prove  the  fact;  for  Matthew  informs  us,  xxvi.  59,  63,  that 
although  the  chief  priests  and  elders,  and  all  the  council,  sought 
false  witnesses  against  him,  and  actually  found  many,  yet  they 
agreed  not  in  their  testimony.  To  end  the  matter,  therefore, 
the^  high  priest  adjured  him  by  the  living  God  to  declare  whether 
he  was  the  Christ.  Had  he  publicly  assumed  this  character, 
there  could  have  been  no  difficulty  in  finding  true  witnesses  of 
the  fact.  This  proceeding  of  the  high  priest  therefore  shows 
that  they  had  no  ground  whatever  to  make  this  accusation, 
except  his  own  confession,  drawn  from  him  in  a  way  he  could 
not  decline.  The  people,  it  appears,  entertained  various  opin- 
ions concerning  him.  Matt.  xvi.  14.  Some  thought  he  was 
Elias,  some  John  the  Baptist,  some  Jeremiah,  or  one  of  the 
prophets.  Some  surmised  that  he  was  the  Christ,  John  vi.  14; 
vii.  41,  and  on  one  occasion  they  gathered  around  him  in  Solo- 
mon's Porch,  and  asked  him  to  say  plainly  whether  he  was  the 
Christ.  John  x.  24.  On  this  occasion,  as  on  others,  he  referred 
them  to  his  works,  John  x.  25,  as  he  did  John  the  Baptist. 
Matt.  xi.  5.  He  forbade  his  disciples  to  tell  others  that  he  was 
the  Christ,  Matt.  xvi.  20;  Mark  viii.  30;  Luke  ix.  21;  and  not 
only  this,  he  even  exercised  his  Divine  power  over  devils,  who 
knew  him  by  his  power,  to  prevent  them  from  declaring  his 
character,  Mark  i.  34;  Luke  iv.  41;  and  the  reason  why  he 
did  so,  was  the  Divine  purpose  to  make  the  people  judge  of  his 
character  by  their  own  Scriptures,  John  v.  39,  and  his  won- 
derful works,  by  which  their  Scriptures  were  fulfilled.  In  pri- 
vate to  his  disciples,  and  those  who  sought  him  with  a  teachable 
spirit,  he  disclosed  his  true  character — as  to  the  woman  of 
Samaria,  John  iv.  26 ;  to  Mary,  John  xi.  27 ;  to  the  twelve 
apostles,  Matt.  xvi.  16,  17;  John  vi.  48.  But  none  of  these 
confessions  were  known  to  the  rulers  of  the  nation;  and  if  they 
Mid  been,  they  could  form  no  just  ground  to  accuse  him  of 
treason,  or  of  setting  himself  up  as  a  king.  Indeed,  when  the 
people  resolved  to  make  him  a  king  by  force,  he  retired  for  a 
time  out  of  their  way  to  a  place  of  solitude.  John  vi.  15.  This 
examination  proves  that  the  accusation,  in  all  its  particulars, 
was  a  mere  fabrication,  got  up  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  the 
unexpected  demand  of  Pilate  for  a  specific  accusation.  Pilate, 
having  received  the  accusation,  retired  from  the  judgment  seat 
on  the  pavement  into  the  Pra}torium,  as  if  to  examine  the  pris- 
oner; but  it  is  evident,  from  what  followed,  that  the  accusation, 
though  made  under  extraordinary  and  imposing  circumstances 


THE   CRUCIFIXION.  339 

by  the  chief  dignitaries  of  the  nation,  really  had  no  effect  what- 
ever upon  his  mind.  The  first  two  particulars  of  the  accusation 
he  did  not  even  mention ;  and  the  last  was  treated  of  in  a  way 
to  show  that  he  considered  it  without  foundation.  But^it  will 
be  instructive  to  enter  into  the  particulars  of  the  questions  and 
answers  which  passed  between  them.  Previously,  however,  let 
us  endeavour  to  conceive  rightly  of  the  scene. 

While  Pilate  was  conferring  with  the  chief  priests  and  rulers 
around  his  judgment  seat  upon  the  pavement,  the  Lord  Jesus 
remained  in  the  custody  of  the  soldiers  within  the  palace,  and 
probably  bound.  Matt,  xxvii.  2.  It  is  probable,  also,  that  his 
person  was  concealed  from  the  view  of  the  multitude  without, 
and  beyond  their  hearing.  As  to  the  arrangements  within  the 
palace,  it  is  impossible  to  say  particularly  what  they  were. 
Thus  much,  however,  we  know,  that  within  the  palace  there  was 
a  court  or  hall — a  spacious  apartment  where  the  soldiers  who 
served  as  the  governor's  body-guard  were  ordinarily  stationed. 
It  contained  also  an  apartment  which  might  be  properly  called 
the  judgment  hall,  as  it  was  used  for  the  hearing  of  causes. 
To  this  apartment,  within  the  Prsetorium,  Pilate  retired  as 
before  mentioned,  and  probably  taking  his  seat,  as  is  usual  in 
such  cases,  called  Jesus  to  him.  John  xviii.  33.  Whether  he 
was  attended  by  any  of  the  soldiers  from  the  place  where  he 
was  standing,  we  are  not  informed;  perhaps  not;  for  Pilate 
evidently  did  not  consider  him  as  an  ordinary  prisoner.  How- 
ever this  may  be,  the  Lord  Jesus,  in  answer  to  the  call,  approached 
Pilate,  and  stood  before  him. 

And  now  we  will  pause  a  moment  to  consider  the  character 
of  these  two  persons,  before  we  proceed  to  the  colloquy  which 
passed  between  them.  Pilate  was,  without  doubt,  a  man  of 
considerable  distinction  and  influence  at  Rome.  Had  he  been 
an  obscure  or  ignorant  man,  or  of  inferior  rank  or  talents,  we 
cannot  account  for  his  appointment  to  so  important  and  diflicult 
a  province  as  Judea.  His  moral  character  was  very  bad.  Philo 
the  Jew  {De  Legatione  ad  Caium)  describes  him  as  a  judge,  who 
for  money  would  render  any  judgment  that  should  be  desired 
of  him.  He  says  he  committed  murders  and  rapines;  inflicted 
tortures  on  the  innocent ;  put  persons  to  death  without  even  the 
forms  of  law.  Josephus,  the  Jewish  historian,  (see  Antiq.,  book 
18,  chap.  4,)  describes  him  as  a  proud,  hasty  man,  violent  in 
his  temper,  and  of  inflexible  obstinacy,  who  troubled  the  repose 
of  his  province,  and  gave  occasion  to  sedition  and  revolt.  Be- 
sides, he  was  a  heathen,  and  no  doubt  regarded  the  religion  of 
the  Jews  as  a  strange  superstition,  not  important  to  be  known, 
except  so  far  as  it  might  be  necessary  to  the  administration  of 
his  government.     Such  in  brief  was  the  character  of  the  judge. 


840  NOTES    ON   SCKIPTURE. 

He  had  not  the  slightest  conception  of  the  real  character  of 
his  prisoner.  Outwardly,  the  Lord  Jesus  appeared  to  him  a 
mere  man,  of  humble  condition.  Had  he  known  what  was 
veiled  under  that  humble,  human  form,  instead  of  sitting  in 
judgment  upon  him,  he  would  have  fallen  at  his  feet,  and  the 
work  of  redemption  would  never  have  been  wrought  through 
his  means.  1  Cor.  ii.  8.  Yet  taking  him  for  what  he  appeared 
to  be,  Pilate  was  bound  to  observe  the  rules  of  justice,  and 
resolutely  to  refuse  to  condemn  the  innocent. 

But  although  Pilate  was  profoundly  ignorant  of  the  mystery 
of  the  Lord's  person,  we  know  that  he  was  really  Immanuel, 
Matt.  i.  23,  or  God  with  men,  manifest  in  human  nature, 
1  Tim.  iii.  16.  His  body  was  assumed  as  a  tabernacle  or  cov- 
ering, in  which  the  glories  of  the  Divine  nature  were  for  a  time 
hidden.  John  i.  14.  The  Scriptures  describe  him  as  the 
brightness  of  the  Father's  glory,  the  express  image  of  his 
person,  Hebrews  i.  3,  the  image  of  the  invisible  God — as 
before  all  things,  as  the  creator,  and  upholder,  and  ruler  of  all 
things,  Col.  i.  15,  17,  whose  name  is  above  every  name,  and 
entitled  to  the  homage  of  every  creature  in  the  vast  universe 
of  God.  Phil.  ii.  9 — 11.  He  was  the  Alpha  and  Omega,  the 
beginning  and  the  end,  the  first  and  the  last.  Rev.  i.  11 ; 
xxii.  13.  From  his  creative  power  Pilate  drew  his  being,  and 
by  his  providential  care  he  was  sustained  in  being.  The 
breath  by  which  Pilate  condemned  him,  he  owed  to  the  for- 
bearance of  the  mysterious  man  who  then  stood  before  him. 
It  is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind  the  character  of  Pilate,  in  order 
to  appreciate  properly  his  proceedings  in  this  business,  and 
also  the  exalted  nature  of  our  Lord,  in  order  to  conceive  pro- 
perly of  his  ansAver  to  Pilate. 

We  now  proceed  with  the  narrative,  John  xviii.  33 ;  Pilate 
having  entered  the  judgment  hall,  and  called  Jesus  to  him,  said: 
"Art  thou  the  King  of  the  Jews?"  See  Matt,  xxvii.  11.  Our 
Lord  did  not  answer  this  question  immediately,  but  interposed 
a  question,  and  this  he  did  to  enable  Pilate  to  set  himself  in 
the  proper  light;  or,  perhaps,  we  should  say,  to  enable  Pilate 
to  assume  the  position  which  he  really  occupied.  For  observe, 
Pilate  does  not  say  that  the  Jews  accused  him  of  setting  him- 
self up  as  a  king,  which  was  the  fact ;  but  he  puts  the  question 
as  though  it  were  prompted  by  his  own  mind.  He  was  not  the 
chief  actor,  although  from  his  question,  if  we  knew  nothing 
more,  we  might  infer  that  he  intended  to  be.  His  sin  was  the 
less,  because  he  performed  only  a  secondary  part,  and  would 
not  have  acted  at  all,  had  it  not  been  for  the  importunity  of 
the  Jews.  For  some  such  reason  as  this,  our  Lord  declined 
his  question  for  a  moment  by  asking  him — 


THE   CRUCIFIXION.  341 

John  xviii.  34.  "  Sayest  tliou  tliia  thing  of  thyself,  or  did 
others  tell  it  thee  of  me?" 

The  reply  of  Pilate  to  this  question  carries  with  it  the  air  of 
impatience.  It  was  probably  uttered  with  some  excitement. 
"Am  I  a  Jew?"  As  if  he  had  said,  You  know  that  I  am  not 
a  Jew.  You  must  also  know  that  I  take  no  interest  or  part 
whatever  in  the  questions  which  divide  this  people.  My  birth, 
education,  official  employment,  associations  in  life,  all  keep  me 
aloof  from  your  national  disputes.  Y^ou  cannot  but  know,  also, 
that  I  am  perfectly  indiiferent  and  impartial  upon  all  such 
questions.  If  you  have  been  unjustly  dealt  with,  I  am  not  to 
be  blamed  for  it,  for  I  have  not  caused  you  to  be  arrested  and 
bound,  and  brought  before  me.  "But  thine  own  nation,  and 
the  chief  priests  have  delivered  thee  unto  me."  John  xviii.  35. 
If  any  wrong  has  been  done  you,  they  are  to  be  blamed  for  it. 

The  answer  of  Pilate,  thus  understood,  defines  his  position, 
and  thus  accomplishes  the  supposed  object  of  our  Lord's 
inquiry.  Pilate  at  the  same  time  bears  witness  to  the  fulfil- 
ment of  our  Lord's  prediction  concerning  the  manner  of  his 
death.  Matt.  xx.  19,  and  also  shows  the  inferiority  of  his 
guilt.  John  xix.  11.  Observe,  now,  he  does  not  go  on  to 
repeat  his  question,  but  puts  a  very  different  one.  He  does 
not  say,  "Tell  me,  therefore,  art  thou  the  king  of  the  Jews?" 
but  he  inquires  in  general  terms,  "What  hast  thou  done?" 
thus  showing  that  he  did  not  expect  an  answer  to  his  first 
inquiry.  Pilate,  it  is  evident,  was  not  deceived  by  this  charge 
of  treason.  He  was  sufficiently  acquainted  with  the  long- 
cherished  expectation  of  the  Jews  relative  to  their  Messiah,  to 
regard  the  question  rather  as  one  of  religion  than  of  politics. 
And,  doubtless,  he  knew  that  Jesus  was  chiefly,  if  not  exclu- 
sively, known  and  regarded  by  the  people  as  a  religious 
teacher.  There  can  be  no  doubt  he  had  heard  of  John  the 
Baptist,  and,  like  Herod,  regarded  the  Lord  Jesus  as  a  man 
of  like  pretensions  and  character.  However  this  may  be,  he 
regarded  even  this  charge  as  utterly  groundless,  for  he  does  not 
even  persist  in  his  first  inquiry,  and  did  not  expect  it  would  be 
answered. 

It  was  not  our  Lord's  purpose,  however,  to  avoid  the  first 
inquiry.  He  therefore  took  no  notice  of  the  second,  and 
replied  not  simply  that  he  was  a  king,  or  that  he  had  a  king- 
dom, but  with  such  a  qualification  as  would  prevent  a  mistake 
on  the  part  of  Pilate.  We  must  not  forget  that  he  was  dealing 
with  Pilate  as  a  mere  man  would  with  another.  Had  he  simply 
said,  "Thou  sayest  it,  I  am  a  king,"  he  would  have  left  Pilate 
at  liberty  to  understand  that  word  in  its  ordinary  acceptation, 
that  is,  in  the  sense  of  an  earthly  ruler,  such  as  Caesar  was. 


842  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

Every  such  supposition  or  surmise,  however,  was  excluded  by 
the  reply, 

John  xviii.  36.     "  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world." 

It  is  very  certain  that  Pilate  had  not  the  remotest  concep- 
tion of  the  nature,  or  glory,  or  extent  of  the  kingdom  our  Lord 
claimed  as  his  own,  and  we  may  add,  that  our  limited  faculties 
and  contracted  notions  of  the  majesty  and  glory  of  Christ, 
prevent  us  from  fathoming  our  Lord's  meaning.  In  conde- 
scension, therefore,  to  the  ignorance  of  Pilate,  as  well  as  our 
own,  he  added  words  that  Pilate  could  understand,  which  by 
assuring  him  that  his  kingdom,  though  real,  was  not  sustained 
by  material  force,  as  tlie  kingdoms  of  the  world  are,  gave  him 
all  tlie  information  he  needed  to  decide  upon  the  accusation  he 
had  just  received. 

John  xviii.  36.  "  If  my  kingdom  were  of  this  world,  then 
would  my  servants  fight,  that  I  should  not  be  delivered  to  the 
Jews.     But  now  my  kingdom  is  not  from  hence." 

It  may  be  inferred,  then,  from  the  reply  of  Pilate  to  this 
avowal,  that  it  took  him  somewhat  by  surprise.  We  observe 
that  his  question  as  to  the  kingship  of  Jesus  had  been  dropped, 
and  an  inquiry  concerning  his  actions  in  general  had  been  sub- 
stituted. With  Pilate's  consent,  therefore,  he  might  have  left 
the  first  question  unanswered.  Pilate  had  dropped  it,  thinking 
it,  no  doubt,  too  futile  to  deserve  notice.  When,  therefore, 
our  Lord,  by  assuming  that  he  had  a  kingdom,  virtually 
admitted  that  he  was  a  king,  Pilate  instantly  drew  the  infer- 
ence, "Thou  art  a  king,  then."  For  these  words,  we  think, 
should  be  regarded  rather  as  an  inference  than  as  a  question 
requiring  a  further  answer. 

Some  commentators  perceive,  as  they  suppose,  an  air  of 
mockery  in  these  words  of  Pilate ;  but  the  narrative  is  so  brief 
it  is  impossible  to  determine  with  certainty  what  emotion  was 
prevalent  in  the  mind  of  Pilate.  Perhaps  he  thought  him  a 
visionary  person,  whose  pretensions  and  aspirations  were  greatly 
at  variance  with  his  outward  condition.  He  might  have  queried 
mentally  who  those  servants  were  who  could  fight  for  him ;  and 
what  more  than  imaginary  could  that  kingdom  be,  which  did 
not  belong  to  this  world?  If  such  were  his  reflections,  he  may 
have  pronounced  these  words  with  an  air  of  incredulity;  at 
least,  it  is  certain  he  did  not  regard  his  pretensions  to  royalty 
treasonable;  for  a  few  moments  after  he  told  his  accusers  that 
he  found  no  fault  in  him.  Pilate  was  evidently  much  impressed 
by  our  Lord's  manner,  and  this  prepared  him  for  the  deeper 
impression  which  was  afterwards  made  upon  him,  when  the 
Jews  made  the  further  accusation  against  him,  that  "he  made 
himself  the  Son  of  God."    John  xix.  7.     Waiving,  however, 


THE   CRUCIFIXION.  343 

further  Inquiry  at  present  upon  this  subject,  let  us  pass  on  to 
our  Lord's  response, 

John  xviii.  87.     "  Thou  sayest  [the  truth],  I  am  a  king." 

We  shall  enter  somewhat  into  the  meaning  of  these  words  if 
we  consider  that  our  Lord,  although  he  appeared  to  Pilate  as  a 
mere  man,  was  in  truth  the  Divine  Word  made  flesh,  John  i.  14; 
the  Creator  of  all  things,  John  i.  3;  the  Divine  Wisdom  set  up 
from  everlasting,  from  the  beginning,  Prov.  viii.  22 — 31;  Im- 
manuel,  or  God  in  human  nature.  Matt.  i.  23;  as  come  down 
from  heaven  and  yet  in  heaven,  John  iii.  13;  xvi.  28.  He  was 
in  glory  with  the  Father  before  the  world  was,  John  xvii.  5; 
but  laid  his  glory  aside  to  accomplish  the  redemption  of  men. 
Philip,  ii.  6— IL 

As  the  Creator  of  all  things,  the  only  revealer  of  the  Divine 
attributes,  he  was  officially,  nay,  essentially,  the  Ruler  and 
Governor  of  all  things;  the  King  of  kings,  and  the  Lord  of 
lords.  In  the  true  and  proper  sense  he  was  the  only  king, 
inasmuch  as  he  was  the  Creator  of  all  kingdoms  and  all  kings. 
His  was  the  only  kingdom — kingdom  of  the  heavens — vast 
beyond  our  conception;  a  kingdom  which  from  the  beginning 
of  creation  has  moved  on  with  uninterrupted  sway  throughout 
myriads  of  worlds;  many,  and  perhaps  most,  of  which  far 
exceed  our  own  in  magnitude,  as  well  as  in  original  glory.  We 
have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  God  has  left  his  vast  creation 
unpeopled  with  intelligent  orders  of  beings,  capable  of  giving 
glory  to  him.  Nor  have  we  reason  to  suppose  that  he  has  suf- 
fered sin  extensively  to  enter  into  the  worlds  he  has  made,  and 
mar  his  work.  All  this  vast  creation  was  under  the  headship 
of  Jesus,  acknowledging  his  sovereign  rights  as  King  and  Cre- 
ator (our  world  excepted)  at  the  very  moment  he  uttered  these 
words  to  Pilate ;  and  it  was  the  purpose  of  his  incarnation  and 
of  his  being  before  Pilate  at  that  time  to  restore  this  world  to 
its  proper  place  in  this  vast  fabric.  Eph.  i.  10.  Every  pater- 
nity or  race  of  beings  throughout  the  universe,  diversified  though 
they  may  be,  as  the  worlds  are  which  they  inhabit,  are  named 
from  him,  Eph.  iii.  15,  and  he  is  the  Lord  and  King  over  all. 

In  this  sense  we  are  to  understand  the  words,  "Thou  sayest, 
I  am  a  king."  We  now  go  back  a  little  to  consider  those  other 
words,  "My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world." 

This  world  was  not  always  as  it  now  is,  in  a  state  of  revolt, 
and  groaning  under  the  curse  of  God.  Rom.  viii.  22.  It  was 
not  created  to  bring  forth  thorns  and  briers.  The  sin  of  man 
wrought  a  vast  change  in  the  condition  and  relations  of  this 
world  to  the  rest  of  the  universe.  Gen.  i.  and  iii.  The  king- 
dom which  prevailed  throughout  the  rest  of  God's  creation  was 


344  NOTES   ON  SCRIPTURE. 

withdrawn,  but  with  the  pnrpose  to  restore  it  by  redemption, 
through  the  sufferings  and  death  of  its  rightful  King. 

We  are  prepared  now  to  enter  somewhat  into  our  Lord's  mean- 
ing. It  may  be  expressed  thus:  "Although  my  kingdom  is 
from  the  beginning  of  the  creation,  and  in  its  origin  embraced 
all  worlds,  yet  it  does  not  now  extend  to  this  world,  which  is  in 
revolt,  and  is  labouring  under  the  curse  of  God,  and  will  labour, 
until  it  shall  be  redeemed  in  a  way  consistent  with  the  Divine 
honour  and  justice.  The  kingdoms  of  this  world  will  be  per- 
mitted to  exist  yet  a  while,  and  to  run  their  appointed  course ; 
and  while  they  continue,  my  kingdom,  which  embraces  all  other 
worlds,  will  not  embrace  this.  But  when  this  world  shall  be 
redeemed  and  restored  to  its  proper  place  in  creation,  then  my 
kingdom  will  embrace  this  world  also,  for  it  shall  then  acknow- 
ledge me  as  its  rightful  king,  and  yield  me  a  willing  and  perfect 
obedience." 

John  XVIII.  36.  "But  noiv  [that  is,  during  this  order  of 
things]  my  kingdom  is  not  from  hence." 

Some  persons  suppose  that  the  Redeemer  had  respect  chiefly 
to  the  spiritual  nature  of  his  kingdom,  when  he  declared  that 
it  was  not  of  this  world,  but  we  think  that  such  an  inter- 
pretation falls  short  of  his  meaning.  His  kingdom  is  indeed 
spiritual,  and  ever  will  be.  It  is  not  maintained  by  material 
force  or  carnal  weapons,  nor  by  the  might  or  power  of  man. 
He  said  as  much  when  he  told  Pilate  that  his  servants  would 
fight  to  prevent  his  being  delivered  to  the  Jews,  if  his  kingdom 
were  like  the  kingdoms  of  this  world.  Where  his  kingdom  pre- 
vails, he  has  only  willing  subjects.  His  laws  are  written  on 
their  hearts,  and  it  is  their  happiness  and  glory  to  yield  him  a 
perfect  obedience.  Not  a  discord  exists  throughout  their  count- 
less hosts.  We  have  a  beautiful  illustration  in  one  respect  of 
what  the  kingdom  of  Christ  will  be  over  redeemed  men  in  Luke 
xxii.  24 — 30.  Love  to  God,  love  to  the  Redeemer,  love  to  their 
fellows — full,  perfect,  ever  glowing,  ever  expanding,  produced 
and  maintained  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  will  be  the  great  principle 
of  all  their  actions.  It  is  therefore  truly  a  spiritual  kingdom, 
though  it  will  have  respect  to  material  objects.  It  is  true  also 
that  Christians,  really  such,  are  influenced,  though  with  many 
imperfections,  in  this  life  by  the  same  great  principle  of  love, 
produced  and  maintained  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Such  was  his  kingdom  over  all  unfallen  worlds  at  the  time 
he  uttered, these  words,  although  it  extended  to  and  embraced 
the  material  fabric  of  creation ;  and  such  will  it  be  over  this 
earth,  when  it  shall  be  delivered  from  the  curse,  and  garnished 
anew.  To  this  period  he  alludes  in  his  interpretation  of  the 
parable  of  the  tares.     "The  field,"  he  says.  Matt.  xiii.  38,  "is 


THE   CRUCIFIXION.  345 

the  world"  (6  xoajuo^,)  the  harvest  is  the  eud  of  the  dispensation 
or  age.  "  As,  therefore,  the  tares  are  gathered  and  burned  in 
the  fire,"  so  shall  it  be  in  the  end  of  this  dispensation  or  age. 
"The  Son  of  Man  shall  send  forth  his  angels,  and  they  shall 
gather  out  of  his  kingdom  all  things  that  offend,   and  them 

which  do  iniquity "Then  shall  the  righteous  shine  forth 

as  the  sun  in  the  kingdom  of  their  Father." 

The  apostle  Peter  teaches  us  that  there  shall  be  new  heavens 
and  a  new  earth,  wherein  dwelleth  righteousness.  2  Pet.  iii.  13. 
He  also  foretells  the  end  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth  which 
now  are,  that  is,  of  this  present  world.  They  are  reserved 
unto  fire.  2  Pet.  iii.  7.  Our  Lord  himself.  Matt.  xix.  28,  speaks 
of  a  second  creation  {TtakyytuBaca,)  which  can  only  mean  those 
new  heavens  and  new  earth  foretold  by  Isaiah,  Ixv.  17,  and 
Peter.  It  was  to  this  future  condition  of  our  earth,  in  its 
regenerated  state,  our  Lord  specially  referred  when  he  said  to 
Pilate,  "My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world,"  tacitly  alluding  to 
the  world  to  come,  when  all  things  will  be  made  new.  Rev. 
xxi.  5.  Other  places  of  Scripture  might  be  cited  to  illustrate 
this  view.     Dan.  vii.  13,  14,  27. 

It  is  not  an  objection  that  Pilate  did  not  so  understand  our 
Lord's  answer.  He  was  a  heathen,  and  probably  entirely 
unacquainted  with  the  Jewish  Scriptures;  or,  if  not,  regarded 
them  with  incredulity. 

The  only  words  which  Pilate  understood  were  those  of  the 
parenthetical  clause.  "  If  my  kingdom  were  of  this  world  then 
would  my  servants  fight,  that  I  should  not  be  delivered  to  the 
Jews."  The  idea  of  a  kingdom,  vast  as  the  universe,  existing 
at  that  very  time  under  the  sway  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  was  alto- 
gether beyond  the  conception  of  Pilate.  As  little  could  he 
conceive  of  the  Divine  purpose  in  regard  to  this  little  speck  of 
earth,  isolated  and  shut  off  by  its  revolt  from  the  rest  of 
creation.  Even  we,  who  have  the  Bible,  are  slow  to  compre- 
hend this  great  truth — the  truth  which  comprehends  within 
itself  all  other  truths;  for  such  our  Lord  regarded  it,  as  is 
plain  from  the  words  which  follow.  John  xviii.  37.  "To  this 
end  was  I  born,  and  for  this  cause  came  I  into  the  world,  that 
I  should  bear  witness  unto  the  truth." 

The  meaning  is  not  that  Christ  was  born  to  be  a  king,  as 
some  suppose.  He  was  a  king  before  he  was  born.  He  could 
not  cease  to  be  a  king  by  his  incarnation.  He  only  laid  aside 
the  glory  he  had  with  the  Father  for  a  little  while,  that  he 
might  restore  a  revolted  province  and  unite  it  again  to  the  rest 
of  his  kingdom  in  such  a  manner  as  would  maintain  the  honour 
of  his  law  and  the  glory  of  his  government. 

The  sense  is,  that  he  was  born — that  he  became  incarnate — 
44 


346  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

and  had  continued  so  long  in  the  world  (incarnate)  that  he 
might  bear  witness  unto  the  truth,  in  which  term  he  compre- 
hends the  great  truths  which  encircle  all  the  realities  of  the 
universe  as  God  made  it,  and  designs  to  maintain  and  preserve 
it  under  himself  as  the  Head.  This  sentiment  is  elsewhere 
very  plainly  declared.  Thus  Paul  teaches  that  all  things  con- 
sist and  have  their  being  in  Christ,  Col.  i.  17 ;  that  he  is  the 
upholder  and  maintainor  of  all  things,  as  Creator  and  King. 
Hence  he  is  the  Truth  and  the  Life.  John  xiv.  6.  His  testi- 
mony to  his  own  character  and  offices,  therefore,  was  a  tes- 
timony to  that  great  truth  upon  which  all  truth  depends.  He 
was  himself  a  manifestation  of  the  Divine  glory ;  and  in  his 
work  of  creation  and  providence  he  is  the  revealer  of  the 
Divine  attributes.  His  work  of  redemption,  including  his 
incarnation  and  death,  will  for  ever  be  a  manifestation  of  the 
truth  and  reality  of  his  relations  to  the  universe,  and  of  his 
supremacy  over  all  created  things,  to  the  glory  of  God  the 
"Father.  In  the  present  condition  of  things  in  this  world, 
the  great  truth  of  the  universe  is  hidden  in  a  mystery  from 
men.  We  have  not,  in  our  present  state,  nor  can  we  have, 
any  adequate  conception  of  the  realities  which  are  scattered 
around  us  in  infinite  profusion  throughout  the  fields  of  space. 
At  best  the  most  enlightened  Christian  sees  through  a  glass 
darkly  or  obscurely.     Hereafter  we  shall  all  see  clearly. 

Bearing  these  thoughts  in  mind,  we  may  more  easily  enter 
into  the  meaning  of  the  next  clause,  John  xviii.  37:  "Every 
one  that  is  of  the  truth  heareth  my  voice."  The  sentiment  is 
the  same  as  that  expressed  in  John  viii,  47,  "He  that  is  of 
God  heareth  God's  words."  We  need  not  restrict  this  declara- 
tion to  an  earthly  application.  It  is  true  of  all  God's  creatures 
in  all  worlds.  Few  of  the  children  of  men  at  that  time  heard 
his  voice  with  obedient  hearts,  or  even  now  hear  it;  while 
myriads  of  myriads  of  glorious  and  holy  creatures  in  other 
parts  of  Christ's  kingdom,  ever  have  yielded  a  joyful  obedience 
to  his  will;  and  so  will  it  be  on  earth,  when  the  kingdom  of 
God  shall  come.  For  then,  we  are  taught,  the  obedience  of 
redeemed  men  shall  be  as  perfect  as  the  obedience  of  heaven. 
This  is  foretold  by  Isaiah,  liv.  13,  and  by  our  Lord  himself, 
John  vi.  45. 

Pilate's  attention  was  momentarily  arrested  by  this  observa- 
tion, although  he  was  utterly  incapable  of  entering  into  the 
comprehensive  consideration  of  the  truth  intended.  Some  sup- 
pose that  Pilate  was  sceptical  enough  to  doubt  whether  there 
was  any  such  thing  as  truth.  If  so,  his  question,  "  What  is 
truth?"  was  prompted  by  incredulity.  It  is  probable,  however, 
his  chief  desire  was  to  get  on  with  the  business  in  hand,  and  to 


THE    CRUCIFIXION.  347 

despatch  the  crowd  which  had  gathered  around  his  tribunal,  as 
soon  as  possible.  But  however  this  may  be,  he  was  allowed  to 
break  off  the  colloquy  without  an  answer.  Indeed,  judging 
from  our  Lord's  conduct  towards  his  disciples,  we  cannot  sup- 
pose that  he  intended  to  enter  into  an  explanation  of  his  pre- 
vious observation;  because  Pilate  was  incapable  of  forming  any 
just  conception  of  the  hidden  truth  of  which  he  spoke.  Why 
should  he,  when  he  forbore  to  tell  his  disciples  many  things, 
because  they  could  not  bear  or  comprehend  them?  John  xvi.  12. 
Evidently  it  was  for  the  instruction  of  his  Church,  that  he 
said  these  things  to  Pilate ;  because  the  business  Pilate  had  in 
hand  did  not  require  any  instruction  in  the  nature  of  truth. 
Had  it  been  our  Lord's  purpose  to  say  more,  he  would  have 
exercised  his  power  over  Pilate's  mind,  so  as  to  detain  him 
longer. 

It  is  remarkable  that  these  were  the  last  words  our  Lord 
addressed  to  Pilate,  except  those  which  are  recorded  in  John 
xix.  11.  Although  questioned,  and  mocked,  and  scourged 
repeatedly  by  Pilate  and  Herod,  he  answered  nothing ;  thus 
fulfilling  Isa.  liii.  7:  "He  was  oppressed  and  he  was  afflicted, 
yet  he  opened  not  his  mouth.  He  is  brought  as  a  lamb  to  the 
slaughter,  and  as  a  sheep  before  her  shearers  is  dumb,  so  he 
openeth  not  his  mouth." 

We  now  resume,  John  xviii.  38:  Pilate  having  said,  "What 
is  truth  ?" — for  it  can  hardly  be  called  a  serious  inquiry,  as 
Pilate  did  not  think  it  worth  his  while  to  stay  for  an  answer — 
immediately  proceeded  again  from  his  hall  within  the  Prne- 
torium,  to  the  judgment  seat  on  the  pavement  without,  where 
the  chief  priests  and  the  people  still  stood,  Luke  xxiii.  4,  and 
declared  to  them  publicly  the  result  of.  his  examination,  in 
these  words,  Luke  xxiii.  4;  John  xviii.  38:  "I  find  no  fault  at 
all  in  this  man." 

One  would  suppose  that  this  public  acquittal  should  have 
ended  the  matter.  We  should  think  it  very  strange,  and 
entirely  inconsistent  with  regular  proceedings,  that  accusers 
should  be  permitted  to  renew  the  charge  after  the  acquittal  of 
the  accused.  If  such  was  the  course  of  a  criminal  proceeding 
in  the  provinces  of  the  Romans,  we  can  only  say  that  the  for- 
malities of  their  own  laws,  and  the  dignity,  regularity,  and  jus- 
tice of  their  ordinary  judicial  proceedings,  were  entirely  disre- 
garded by  their  provincial  functionaries.  They  certainly  were 
so  in  this  case ;  for  notwithstanding  this  acquittal  by  the  gov- 
ernor, the  chief  priests  and  elders  were  allowed  still  to  persist 
in  accusing  him,  Mark  xv.  3;  Matt,  xxvii.  12 — 14,  of  many 
things,  but  he  answered  nothing. 

Tiie  narrative  left  the  Lord  Jesus  bound,  and  standing  in  the 


348  NOTES   ON    SCRIPTURE. 

judgment  hall,  within  the  palace,  while  Pilate  went  out  to  the 
judgment  seat  on  the  pavement,  to  announce  the  conclusion  to 
which  he  had  come.  It  is  probable,  however,  that  the  Lord 
Jesus  was  at  the  same  time,  or  soon  after,  conducted  from  the 
palace  to  the  same  place,  by  one  or  more  of  the  soldiers ;  for 
we  are  told  that  Pilate,  upon  hearing  these  new  accusations, 
said  to  him.  Matt,  xxvii.  13:  "Hearest  thou  not  how  many 
things  they  witness  against  thee  ?  But  he  answered  him  never 
a  word." 

Such  deportment,  under  the  circumstances,  seemed  surprising 
to  Pilate.  He  could  not  conceive  that  a  man  so  fiercely 
accused  by  the  chief  men  of  his  nation,  could  remain  silent 
when  called  upon  to  speak.  He  supposed  he  would  at  least 
deny  his  guilt.  Pilate,  therefore,  takes  notice  of  this  silence 
and  renews  the  question. 

Mark  xv.  4.  "Answerest  thou  nothing?  Behold  how 
many  things  they  witness  against  thee."  Still  he  answered 
nothing,  so  that  Pilate  marvelled  greatly.  Matt,  xxvii.  14. 
His  silence,  however,  had  no  softening  effect  upon  the  priests. 
It  rather  made  them  the  more  fierce.  They  reiterated  one  of 
the  charges  they  had  already  made,  but  with  the  addition  of 
other  circumstances,  saying,  Luke  xxiii.  5,  "He  stirreth  up 
the  people,  teaching  throughout  all  Jewry,  beginning  from 
Galilee  to  this  place,"  that  is,  Jerusalem.  Observe  now  that 
this  accusation,  to  be  of  any  moment,  should  mean  nothing  less 
than  seditious  conduct,  by  teaching  dangerous  and  exciting 
doctrines  extensively  to  the  people.  But  this  charge  made 
no  more  impression  on  Pilate's  mind  than  the  former  one. 
It  does  not  appear  that  he  even  took  it  into  consideration  at  all 
at  that  time,  for  the  word  G-alilee  immediately  suggested  to 
him  an  expedient  by  which  he  hoped  to  get  rid  of  the  whole 
matter.  Galilee  was  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of  Pilate,  but 
of  Herod;  and  he  knew  that  Herod  at  that  very  time  was  in 
Jerusalem,  having  come  to  attend  the  feast  of  the  Passover,  as 
he  supposed,  but  in  truth  having  been  brought  there  in  the 
Providence  of  God  to  take  part  in  the  awful  scenes  which  were 
then  enacting.  Acts  iv.  25 — 29.  The  thought  instantly 
occurred  to  Pilate  to  send  Jesus  and  his  accusers  with  the 
cause  to  Herod,  under  pretence  that  Herod  was  the  proper 
functionary  to  decide  the  matter.  He  therefore  promptly  dis- 
missed the  whole  party  from  his  tribunal,  and  probably  sent 
the  Lord  Jesus  under  custody  to  Herod,  hoping,  no  doubt,  that 
he  should  not  be  called  on  to  act  further. 

It  does  not  appear  how  long  Pilate  had  been  engaged  in  the 
business.  The  priests,  we  have  seen,  came  to  the  Prsetorium 
at  an  early  hour,  perhaps  about  five  o'clock,  or  a  little  before 


THE   CRUCIFIXION.  349 

sunrise.  It  is  probable  that  Pilate,  after  the  cause  was  sent 
back  to  him  by  Herod,  gave  his  final  sentence  as  early  at 
latest  as  nine  o'clock,  according  to  our  mode  of  reckoning  time. 
Consequently,  to  allow  space  for  the  transaction  before  Herod 
and  the  subsequent  completion  of  the  tragedy,  we  must  suppose 
that  Pilate  sent  the  Lord  Jesus  to  Herod  as  early  as  seven 
o'clock,  and  consequently  it  was  still  early  when  the  Jews 
appeared  before  Herod.  Yet  we  have  not  the  means  of  com- 
puting the  time  precisely.  What  we  do  know  is,  that  the 
crucifixion  commenced  at  the  third  Jewish  hour,  Mark  xv.  25, 
that  is,  about  nine  o'clock  in  the  morning.  This  would  corres- 
pond with  the  sixth  Roman  hour,  which,  according  to  the 
common  understanding,  extended  to  nine  o'clock. 

Before  we  proceed  with  the  narrative,  let  us  pause  a  moment 
on  this  conduct  of  Pilate.  We  have  seen  that  he  was  astonished 
at  the  silence  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  endeavoured  repeatedly 
to  induce  him  to  speak.  What  his  motive  was  we  can  only 
conjecture.  Perhaps,  cruel  and  hard-hearted  as  he  was,  he 
felt  some  compassion  for  the  man  whom  he  knew  to  be  inno- 
cent. But  probably  his  chief  motive  was  a  selfish  one.  He 
wished  Jesus  to  furnish  him  with  the  means  of  discharging  him, 
so  that  he  might  refuse  compliance  with  the  demand  of  the  Jews, 
without  seeming  to  be  favourable  to  Jesus.  He  saw  plainly 
that  the  motive  of  the  Lord's  silence  was  not  contempt  for  him, 
nor  even  contempt  for  his  accusers.  Contempt  it  could  not  be. 
That  is  a  feeling  which  belongs  to  our  corrupt  nature,  and  it 
implies  some  proportion  between  the  contemner  and  the  con- 
temned. The  Divine  nature  of  our  Lord  placed  him  at  an 
infinite  remove  from  those  into  whose  hands  he  had  surrendered 
himself.  It  was  in  compassion  for  sinners  of  mankind,  that 
he  had  thus  humbled  himself,  and  in  that  compassion  even 
Pilate  and  the  chief  priests  shared.  This  is  proved  by  his 
prayer  on  the  cross:  "Father,  forgive  them,  for  they  know  not 
what  they  do."  The  patience  and  the  dignity  of  the  Redeemer 
did  not  escape  the  notice  of  Pilate.  Could  he  have  read  and 
understood  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  liii.  7,  the  impenetrable 
mystery  would  have  been  solved.  He  was  the  lamb  of  God 
brought  to  the  sacrifice.  He  was  no  more  under  the  influence 
of  the  passions  of  the  human  heart  than  that  emblem  of  his 
person  and  work.  Like  his  office  as  Redeemer,  his  demeanour 
on  that  occasion  was  a  mystery  concealed  alike  from  men  and 
devils.  1  Cor.  ii.  7 ;  Heb.  ii.  14. 

The  conduct  of  Pilate  in  sending  the  cause  to  Herod  deserves 
reprehension.  There  Avas  no  sincerity  in  the  pretence  he 
offered.  His  motive  was  to  get  rid  of  a  responsibility  properly 
devolved  upon  him,  in  a  way  that  put  in  jeopardy  the  rights  of 


350  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

innocence.  It  was  selfish  prudence  acting  in  opposition  to  the 
demands  of  justice.  He  ought  to  have  discharged  his  own 
duty,  and  not  to  have  cast  it  upon  another.  In  the  apocryphal 
book  of  Ecclesiasticus,  vii.  6,  we  find  a  maxim  which  it  had 
been  well  for  Pilate  to  have  considered,  before  he  accepted  of 
the  responsible  office  which  he  held :  "  Seek  not  to  be  a  judge, 
being  not  able  to  take  away  iniquity,  lest  at  any  time  thou  fear 
the  person  of  the  mighty,  and  lay  a  stumbling-block  in  the  way 
of  thy  uprightness."  Pilate  has  had  many  followers  in  this 
part  of  his  conduct  in  all  ages.  Men  love  authority,  but  fear 
the  dangers  it  brings  with  it.  Many,  like  Pilate,  have  recoiled 
from  perpetrating  acts  of  injustice,  yet  in  a  way  to  elude  the 
demands  of  justice.  Many  have  paid  homage  to  conscience, 
but  greater  homage  to  man.  Many  have  desired  to  appear 
wise,  moderate,  disinterested,  and  equitable,  under  pretence  of 
not  wishing  to  usurp  functions  or  rights  which  belong  to  another, 
hoping  thereby  to  conceal,  under  an  honourable  exterior,  their 
weakness  and  cowardice.  Such,  beyond  all  reasonable  ques- 
tion, were  the  real  motives  of  this  politic  governor.  His  duty 
clearly  was  to  have  adhered  to  his  own  conclusions,  and  reso- 
lutely to  have  put  an  end  to  the  cause,  of  which  he  had  full 
and  final  jurisdiction.  His  fault  in  sending  the  Lord  to  Herod 
was  soon  after  followed  by  others  of  a  much  graver  character. 
We  now  proceed  to  the  hall  of  Herod. 

Luke  xxiii.  8.  "And  when  Herod  saw  Jesus  he  was  exceed- 
ing glad;  for  he  was  desirous  to  see  him  of  a  long  season, 
because  he  had  heard  many  things  of  him,  and  he  hoped  to 
have  seen  some  miracle  done  by  him." 

The  Herod  here  spoken  of  was  Herod  Antipas,  a  son  of 
Herod  the  Great,  by  Cleopatra,  his  fifth  wife.  In  order  to 
distinguish  between  the  different  Herods  mentioned  in  the  New 
Testament,  it  is  proper  to  give  in  this  place  a  short  account  of 
them.  Herod  the  Great,  king  of  Judea,  &c.,  mentioned  in 
Matt.  ii.  1,  and  Luke  i.  5,  was  the  son  of  Antipas,  or  Anti- 
pater,  an  Idumean,  who  was  made  Prefect  of  Judea  and  Syria 
by  Julius  Cresar.  Antipater  died  before  the  incarnation  of  our 
Lord.  Herod  the  Great  had  four  sons :  Aristobulus,  whom  he 
put  to  death;  Archelaus,  mentioned  in  Matt.  ii.  22;  Philip, 
mentioned  in  Luke  iii.  1 ;  and  Herod  Antipas,  who  is  spoken 
of  in  Matt.  xiv.  3;  Mark  vi.  14;  Luke  iii.  1;  ix.  17;  xxiii.  11. 
Aristobulus  left  three  children,  viz.  Herod,  king  of  Chalcis; 
Herod  Agrippa,  the  elder,  mentioned  in  Acts  xiii.  1;  and 
Herodias,  who  married  Herod  Philip,  Matt.  xiv.  3,  her  uncle. 
Herod  Agrippa,  the  elder.  Acts  xiii.  1,  left  three  children : 
Berenice,  mentioned  in  Acts  xxv.  13;  Agrippa,  the  younger. 
Acts  xxv.  13;  xxvi.  1 — 32;  and  Drusilla,  mentioned  in  Acts 


THE   CRUCIFIXION.  351 

xxiv.  24.  Herod  Antipas  is  most  frequently  mentioned  in  the 
New  Testament  of  all,  and  to  him  the  Evangelist,  in  the  verse 
just  quoted,  refers. 

This  was  that  Herod  *  who  put  John  the  Baptist  to  death,  in 
complaisance  to  Herodias,  the  daughter  of  Aristobulus,  Matt, 
xiv.  3 — 12.  He  was  the  person  to  whom  our  Lord  applied  the 
epithet  fox^  Luke  xiii.  31 — 33,  in  allusion  to  his  crafty,  insidi- 
ous character.  He  was  a  deep  dissembler,  yet  much  more 
enlightened  than  Pilate  in  the  religious  faith  of  the  Jews.  He 
had  often  heard  John  the  Baptist  with  pleasure,  and  was  in 
many  things  influenced  by  him.  Mark  vi.  20.  He  feared  John, 
and  ordered  his  execution  with  reluctance.  Yet  he  was  a  vain, 
unprincipled  man,  curious  in  his  inquiries,  fluctuating  between 
religion  and  infidelity — a  character  not  uncommon  among 
princes,  philosophers,  and  other  persons  whom  the  world 
accounts  great.  He  had  heard  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  but  had 
never  seen  him.  He  even  surmised  that  he  was  no  other  than 
John  the  Baptist,  risen  from  the  dead,  and  accounted  for  his 
miraculous  powers  in  that  way.  Luke  ix.  7,  9;  Mark  vi.  14; 
Matt.  xiv.  2.  Herod  was  pleased  to  see  the  Lord '  Jesus, 
because  his  curiosity,  and  perhaps  his  fears,  had  been  excited 
by  the  reports  he  had  heard  of  his  wonderful  works,  and  the 
opportunity  had  at  length  occurred  to  remove  the  one,  and 
gratify  the  other. 

Had  the  Lord  Jesus  been  actuated  by  considerations  of 
human  prudence,  he  would  have  embraced  the  opportunity 
thus  afforded  him  of  ingratiating  himself  with  Herod.  He 
was  a  Jewish  prince,  well  instructed  in  the  Jewish  religion, 
who  had  enjoyed  the  benefit  of  John  the  Baptist's  instructions, 
and  might  have  been  influenced  by  a  miracle  to  interpose  his 

*  Antipas  or  Antipateb,  an  Idumean,  made  Prefect  of  Judea  and  Syria  by 
Julius  Caesar. 

Herod  the  Great,  King  of  Judea,  &c. 
Matt.  ii.  1.       I      Luke  i.  5. 

Aristobulus,  put  to       Archelaus,  Philip,                         Herod  Antipas, 

death  by  his  fa-       Matt.  ii.  22.  Luke  iii.  1.                Matt.  xiv.  3. 

ther.  Mark  vi.  14. 

I  Luke  iii.  1;  ix.  17; 

I  xxiii.  11. 

Herod,  King  of  Chalcis.  j                                            j 

Herod  Agrippa,  the  elder,  Herodias,  married  to  He- 
Acts  xiii.  1.                           rod  Philip,  Matt.  xiv.  3. 

^  ^  _ 

Berenice,  Agrippa,  the  younger,  Drusilla, 

Acts  XXV.  13,  Acts  XXV.  13  ;  xxvi.  1 — 32.         Acts.  xxiv.  24. 


352  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

influence  and  authority  for  his  protection.  But  it  is  very  evi- 
dent that  Herod  was  utterly  ignorant  of  the  reasons  for  which 
miracles  were  appointed.  Herod  had  listened  to  John  as  a 
preacher,  whose  office  it  was  to  preach  the  kingdom,  and  to 
baptize  the  nation,  but  not  to  perform  miracles.  John  x.  41. 
With  our  Lord's  personal  ministry  commenced  the  time  of 
miracles,  and  they  were  wrought  by  him  and  his  apostles,  as 
proofs  of  the  doctrine  or  fact  which  they  preached.  But  at 
the  time  we  speak  of,  the  personal  ministry  of  our  Lord  was 
ended.  The  Jewish  nation  had  rejected  him,  and  he  was  now 
about  to  offer  his  body  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin.  Even  during  his 
active  ministry  our  Lord  had  performed  miracles  only  as  proofs 
of  his  doctrine,  or  to  relieve  the  sufferings  of  those  who  ap- 
proached him  with  faith.  It  was  impossible,  therefore,  that 
after  his  public  ministry  was  closed,  and  the  purpose  of  miracles 
was  accomplished,  he  should  perform  a  work  to  gratify  the  curi- 
osity of  a  wicked  prince,  who  had  put  to  death  his  forerunner. 

The  Evangelists  do  not  inform  us  what  questions  Herod  put 
to  him,  but  Luke  says, 

Luke  xxiii.  9.     "He  questioned  him  in  many  words." 

It  has  already  been  mentioned,  Matt.  xiv.  1,  2,  that  when  he 
first  heard  of  the  fame  of  Jesus,  he  said  to  his  servants  that 
Jesus  was  John  the  Baptist  risen  from  the  dead ;  and  he  under- 
took to  account  in  that  way  for  our  Lord's  miraculous  powers. 
This  is  an  instance  of  the  power  of  conscience.  It  proves  that 
Herod  had  a  knowledge  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  and 
believed  it.  If  this  impression  still  continued  on  his  mind,  it  is 
not  improbable  that  Herod  directed  some  of  his  questions  to 
that  point,  in  order  to  know  whether  he  was  really  John  under 
another  name.  If  Pilate  sent  the  accusation  of  the  Jews,  that 
he  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah,  it  is  probable  he  questioned  him 
upon  that  subject  also.  Perhaps,  too,  some  of  Herod's  ques- 
tions were  suggested  by  the  accusations  of  the  chief  priests  and 
scribes;  for  the  Evangelist  informs  us,  that,  Luke  xxiii.  10, 
"The  chief  priests  and  the  scribes  stood  and  vehemently 
accused  him." 

By  this  we  know  that  the  priests  and  scribes  went  from 
Pilate's  judgment  seat  on  the  pavement,  to  the  lodgings  of 
Herod.  This  shows  how  intent  they  were  upon  accomplishing 
their  object.  They  were  alarmed,  perhaps,  by  the  favourable 
judgment  of  Pilate.  They  feared,  perhaps,  that  Herod,  who 
had  not  thus  far  participated  in  their  evil  feelings,  might  be 
overcome,  or  be  persuaded  by  the  dignified  bearing  and  per- 
suasive words  of  Jesus,  and  confirm  the  favourable  sentence  of 
Pilate.  They,  therefore,  renewed  their  efforts,  and  invented, 
perhaps,  new  accusations,  although  we  are  not  told  what  accu- 


THE   CRUCIFIXION.  353 

sations  they  made  before  Herod,  and  urged  them  with  greater 
vehemence,  in  order  to  persuade  Herod  to  their  side;  or,  per- 
haps, to  intimidate  him,  if  he  were  inclined  to  hesitate.  But 
whatever  were  the  motives  of  Herod,  or  the  reasons  of  his  joy 
at  seeing  Jesus,  or  the  accusations  or  the  motives  of  the  priests 
and  scribes,  they  were  all  disappointed  by  the  unforeseen  and 
unexpected  demeanour  of  the  Redeemer;  for  we  read, 

Luke  xxiii.  9.     "  He  answered  him  nothing. 

It  is  remarkable,  that  while  the  Lord  answered  questions 
before  the  Jewish  council,  and  before  Pilate,  before  Herod  he 
was  perfectly  silent.  The  effect  of  his  silence  upon  Herod  was 
not  the  same  as  we  have  noticed  in  the  case  of  Pilate.  Indeed, 
if  we  compare  the  conduct  of  Pilate,  as  far  as  we  have  gone, 
with  that  of  Herod,  the  advantage  is  in  favour  of  the  former. 
Pilate  had  not  derided  him,  and  he  evidently  wished  to  release 
him.  But  Herod  and  his  minions  indulged  in  unfeeling  mock- 
ery, in  spite  of  the  calm  and  heavenly  dignity  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

Luke  xxiii.  11.  "He,  with  his  men  of  war  [that  is,  his 
military  suite  which  attended  him  to  Jerusalem],  set  him  at 
naught,  and  mocked  him,  and  arrayed  him  in  a  gorgeous  robe 
[probably  of  a  purple  colour,  as  a  scoif  at  his  kingly  dignity], 
and  sent  him  [back  thus  attired]  to  Pilate." 

Why  Herod  sent  him  back,  we  are  not  informed.  Some 
have  surmised,  that  it  was  because  he  found  on  inquiry,  that 
Jesus  was  not  born  within  his  province,  but  at  Bethlehem, 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  Pilate.  It  is  plain,  however,  that 
Herod,  for  some  reason,  declined  to  take  jurisdiction  of  the 
cause;  and  although  he  cruelly  derided  him,  yet  he  did  not 
condemn  him.  Such  conduct  in  a  case  of  the  humblest  of 
Herod's  subjects,  was  utterly  unworthy  of  the  dignity  of  the 
lowest  magistrate,  and  much  more  so  of  a  prince  or  governor. 
The  conduct  of  Herod  shows  that  he  was  devoid  of  compassion, 
as  well  as  of  the  sentiments  becoming  his  station.  Herod,  by 
clothing  him  in  a  scarlet  robe,  intended  to  intimate  that  his 
claims  to  royalty  were  vain  and  chimerical,  and  with  the  same 
motive  Pilate  may  have  composed  the  inscription  he  put  over 
the  cross.  But  both  Herod  and  Pilate  in  this  way  rendered  a 
public  testimony  to  his  true  character,  without  intending  to 
do  so. 

This  union  of  these  two  men  with  the  people  whom  they 
represented,  is  noticed  in  Acts  iv.  25,  27,  as  a  fulfilment  of  the 
second  Psalm.  "Why  did  the  heathen  rage,  and  the  people 
imagine  a  vain  thing?"  ....  "For  of  a  truth,  against  thy 
holy  child  Jesus  whom  thou  hast  anointed,  both  Herod  and 
Pontius  Pilate,  with  the  Gentiles,  and  the  people  of  Israel,  were 
gathered  together  to  do  whatsoever  thy  hand  and  thy  counsel 
45 


354  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

determined  before  to  be  done."  Their  union  in  this  Tvork 
extinguished  the  enmity  which  had  previously  existed  between 
them,  for  Luke  adds,  that  "  The  same  day  Pilate  and  Herod 
were  made  friends  together,  for  before  they  were  at  enmity." 
Luke  xxiii.  12. 

He  does  not  tell  us  what  was  the  cause  of  their  enmity,  but 
only  the  fact.  It  is  true  that  Pilate  had  treated  some  Gali- 
leans who  were  subjects  of  Herod,  with  great  barbarity,  and 
this  may  have  been  the  cause.  Yet  the  cause,  whatever  it  may 
have  been,  was  considered  of  inferior  moment  to  the  compli- 
ment Pilate  had  paid  to  Herod,  in  transmitting  Jesus  to  his 
jurisdiction,  upon  being  informed  that  he  was  a  Galilean. 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE   CRUCIFIXION. 

Pilate  resumes  the  trial  of  the  Lord  Jesus. — His  expedients  to  satisfy  our  Lord's 
accusers. — His  solemn  acquittal  of  Jesus. — The  imprecation  of  the  Jews. — 
Pilate's  efforts  to  reconcile  the  demands  of  justice  and  his  own  conscience  with 
his  fears. — Second  mockery  of  the  royalty  of  Jesus. — The  Jews  endeavour  to 
remove  the  scruples  of  Pilate  by  a  new  accusation. — Satan  the  chief  actor  in 
this  great  conflict. — Pilate  given  over  to  the  invisible  power  of  Satan. — Jews 
and  Gentiles  concur  in  the  accomplishment  of  the  mystery  of  redemption. — 
Judas's  repentance  not  genuine. — An  allegorical  intimation  of  the  future  call 
of  the  Gentiles. — Jesus'  warning  to  those  who  bewailed  him. — National  ruin 
of  the  Jews,  and  its  continuance. 

It  was  no  doubt  with  regret  that  Pilate  saw  the  soldiers  return 
through  the  streets — at  that  time  crowded  with  strangers  who 
had  come  to  attend  the  feast — with  their  prisoner  to  his  bar. 
He  had  hoped  to  escape  all  further  responsibility,  but  he  found 
himself  mistaken.  It  is  probable  the  priests,  and  scribes,  and 
the  multitude,  followed  closely  in  the  train.  Seeing,  therefore, 
no  escape,  Pilate  resumes  the  trial ;  having  first 

Luke  xxiii.  13.  "  Called  together  the  chief  priests,  and  the 
rulers,  and  the  people." 

The  embarrassment  of  Pilate  arose  from  his  indecision;  and 
the  unjustifiable  expedient  of  sending  Jesus  to  Herod  as  a 
prisoner.  Herod  returned  him  as  such,  in  custody,  to  Pilate, 
and  Pilate,  therefore,  could  not  avoid  proceeding  further. 
Had  he  declared  plainly  and  firmly  his  sentence  in  the  first 
instance,  he  would  have  freed  himself  from  all  further  trouble. 
He  ought  not  to  have  given  the  priests,  and  scribes,  and 
people,  the  slightest  encouragement  to  hope  anything  further 
or  different  from  him,  and  adhered  to  his  purpose  with  firm- 
ness. 


PILATE   KESUMES   THE   TRIAL.  355 

Upon  resuming  the  business,  he  said  to  the  multitude  gathered 
on  the  pavement,  which  no  doubt  was  very  hxrge, 

Luke  xxiii.  14,  15.  "Ye  have  brought  this  man  unto  me, 
as  one  that  perverteth  the  people,  and  behold,  I  have  examined 
him  before  you,  and  have  found  no  fault  in  this  man  touching 
those  things  whereof  ye  accuse  him ;  no,  nor  yet  Herod ; 
for  I  sent  you  to  him,  and  nothing  worthy  of  death  is  done 
unto  him." 

Observe,  the  only  charge  he  specifies  is  that  of  perverting 
the  people.  He  says  nothing  of  treason,  or  forbidding  to  pay 
tribute  to  Csesar.  He  again  declares  him  innocent  of  the 
offences  charged  against  him  by  the  chief  priests,  scribes, 
and  elders.  He  speaks  of  the  examination  as  having  been 
made  in  their  presence,  and  he  declares  that  his  own  judgment 
in  the  matter  had  been  confirmed  by  Herod.  Under  these 
circumstances,  what  honest  course  was  left  Pilate  but  to  dis- 
charge him  immediately  from  custody,  and  allow  him  to 
resume  his  former  course  of  life?  We  are  astonished,  there- 
fore, at  the  obliquity  of  Pilate's  moral  sense,  when  he  an- 
nounces his  purpose  to  chastise  him  first,  and  then  release  him. 

Luke  xxiii.  16.  "I  will  therefore  chastise  him  and  release 
him." 

Pilate's  motive  for  this  act  of  injustice,  was  probably  to 
propitiate  the  Jews,  and  allay  the  infuriated  passions  of  the 
priests  and  rulers.  Perhaps  he  had  brought  himself  to  believe 
that  it  was  an  act  of  lenity  to  inflict  chastisement,  if  he  might 
thereby  save  life. 

But  such  a  course  was  utterly  unworthy  of  a  man  invested 
with  judicial  power,  even  without  any  other  authority.  But  he 
was  the  governor.  He  had  a  military  force  at  his  command, 
sufiiciently  ample  to  protect  himself,  and  enforce  his  decisions. 
He  knew  perfectly  well  that  the  charge  of  seditious  conduct  in 
Galilee  was  entirely  groundless;  for  who  could  know  better 
than  Herod  whether  the  charge  was  true  ?  Had  Herod  thought 
the  other  charge  of  taking  upon  himself  the  title  of  king  of  the 
Jews  worthy  of  consideration,  who  would  have  been  more  ready 
than  he  to  punish  the  assumption?  His  father,  Herod  the 
Great,  fearing  lest  his  royal  pretensions  should  be  interfered 
with,  some  thirty  years  before,  had  ordered  the  massacre  of  the 
children  of  Bethlehem  and  its  neighbourhood,  on  the  report  of 
the  birth  of  the  king  of  the  Jews  at  that  place.  Matt, 
chap.  ii.  Yet  Herod  had  ridiculed  the.  idea,  in  a  way  that 
reflected  strongly  upon  the  high  priests.  The  mockery  of  the 
accused  was  a  mockery  of  them,  the  accusers.  Pilate  under- 
stood from  what  Herod  did,  Herod's  opinion  of  what  he,  Pilate, 
ought  to  do. 


356  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTUKE. 

Yet  he  proposes  to  punisli  a  man  because  he  is  falsely 
accused,  and  to  turn  upon  him  the  indignation  which  was  due 
to  his  accusers.  But  the  accusers  were  powerful,  bold,  im- 
placable in  their  hatred,  and  capable  of  inspiring  Pilate  with 
fear.  He  knew  they  would  not  consent  to  an  entire  justi- 
fication, but  he  thought  this  smaller  injustice,  as  it  seemed  to 
him,  would  appease  them.  He  feared  to  irritate  the  priests, 
and  scribes,  and  rulers,  by  refusing  everything,  and  hoped  to 
make  them  relax,  by  ordering  chastisement  instead  of  death. 
But  he  was  mistaken.  This  unjust  condescension  showed  his 
weakness  and  his  fears,  of  which  the  priests  and  scribes  took 
advantage. 

The  bad  example  of  Herod  was  probably  injurious  to  Pilate. 
He  understood  from  Herod's  conduct  that  he  regarded  the  Lord 
Jesus  as  a  visionary  king  or  a  madman,  and  therefore  not  worthy 
of  serious  consideration.  This  led  him,  Pilate,  to  believe,  per- 
haps, that  it  was  a  case  in  which  he  was  not  called  upon  to  be 
absolutely  and  inflexibly  just.  Herod  had  been  guilty  of  injus- 
tice in  exposing  an  innocent  person  to  derision,  and  Pilate 
thought,  perhaps,  that  he  might  with  as  good  reason  commit  an 
injustice  of  another  kind. 

Matt,  xxvii.  15.  "Now  at  that  feast,  the  governor  was 
wont  to  release  unto  the  people," 

Mark  xv.  6.     "One  prisoner,  whomsoever  they  desired." 

Matt,  xxvii.  16.  "And  they  had  then  a  notable  prisoner 
called  Barabbas," 

Mark  xv.  7,  8.  "Which  lay  bound  with  them,  that  had 
made  insurrection  with  him,  who  had  committed  murder  in  the 
insurrection  in  the  city,  Luke  xxiii.  19,  and  the  multitude  cry- 
ing aloud,  began  to  desire  him  to  do  as  he  had  ever  done  unto 
them." 

The  origin  of  this  custom  is  uncertain.  Probably  it  was  very 
remote.  Some  suppose  it  was  founded  on  the  delivery  of  the 
people  from  Egyptian  bondage.  Others  refer  it  to  the  deliver- 
ance from  the  exterminating  angel  on  the  night  of  the  first  pass- 
over.  Others,  still,  suppose  this  custom  was  of  Roman  origin, 
and  they  refer  to  Livy,  book  v.,  c.  13,  to  prove  that  during  the 
Lectisternia  all  prisoners  in  Rome  were  freed  from  their  bonds. 
But  this  custom  required  the  release  of  only  one  prisoner,  and 
was  probably  of  Jewish  origin. 

We  observe  that,  according  to  Matthew,  xxvii.  15,  it  was  a 
favour  shown  to  the  people,  not  to  the  rulers.  The  people  had 
the  choice,  and  as  Mark,  xv.  6,  says,  they  might  choose  whom- 
soever they  desired.  Hence,  the  priests  and  elders,  knowing 
that  the  privilege  of  choice  was  not  theirs,  but  that  of  the 
public  generally,  were  obliged  to  use  persuasion  with  the  people 


Pilate's  desire  to  release  jesus.  357 

not  to  ask  the  release  of  Jesus.  Matt,  xxvii.  20.  We  may 
infer,  however,  that  the  custom  had  not  the  force  of  a  hiw, 
because  in  this  instance  Pilate,  as  we  shall  soon  see,  restricted 
them  to  a  choice  between  two  persons,  although  we  know  that 
there  were  other  persons  in  prison  at  that  time.  Therefore, 
after  the  Redeemer  had  been  sent  back  to  Pilate  by  Herod, 
and  Pilate  had  called  the  chief  priests,  rulers,  and  people 
together,  with  allusion  to  this  custom  which  they  had  men- 
tioned, Pilate  said: 

John  xviii.  39.  "  Ye  have  a  custom  that  I  should  release 
one  unto  you  at  the  passover ;  will  ye  therefore  that  I  release 
unto  you  the  king  of  the  Jews?" 

This  question  was  prompted  by  Pilate's  desire.  According 
to  Matt,  xxvii.  17,  he  put  the  question  in  another  form:  "Whom 
will  ye  that  I  release  unto  you,  Barabbas,  or  Jesus  who  is  called 
Christ?"  It  is  probable  he  put  the  question  in  both  forms. 
But  in  neither  form  was  it  according  to  the  custom  as  Mark 
stated  it.  Luke,  xxiii.  17,  informs  us,  that  of  necessity  Pilate 
must  release  one  person  unto  them  at  the  feast,  and  we  must 
either  suppose  that  Pilate  was  disposed  to  disregard  the  law  to 
some  extent,  or  that  the  law  was  binding  upon  him  only  so  far 
as  to  require  the  release  of  one  person,  without  giving  the 
people  the  absolute  right  to  designate  the  person  as  Mark 
states  it. 

Let  us  go  back  now  to  the  proposition  of  Pilate  to  inflict 
chastisement  upon  Jesus,  and  then  to  release  him.  Perhaps  as 
some  have  supposed,  Pilate  intended  this  as  a  release  according 
to  the  custom;  but  this  opinion  does  not  appear  probable.  Pi- 
late w^as  desirous  to  release  the  Lord  upon  any  terms  that  would 
satisfy  the  accusers,  and  not  jeopard  his  own  popularity  or 
safety.  But  whatever  his  intention  was,  they  paid  no  regard 
to  the  proposition.  For  the  next  thing  done  by  Pilate  was  to 
refer  to  this  custom,  which  was  another  expedient  to  avoid  con- 
demning the  Redeemer  to  death,  as  the  priests  and  rulers 
demanded.  Perhaps  he  thought  this  expedient  even  preferable 
to  the  one  he  first  proposed,  as  it  would  relieve  him  from  per- 
forming the  unjust  act  of  scourging  an  innocent  person,  and 
even  from  passing  any  judgment  against  him. 

It  is  probable,  too,  that  the  motive  of  Pilate,  in  restricting 
the  choice  of  the  people  to  these  two  persons,  was  the  belief 
that  they  could  not  hesitate  between  these  two,  to  ask  for  the 
release  of  Jesus ;  for  Barabbas  appears  to  have  been  one  of 
those  atrocious  criminals  for  whom  the  people  have  no  sym- 
pathy. Pilate  probably  thought  that  if  the  people  should  be 
allowed  to  make  choice  generally  of  any  prisoner  whom  they 
desired,  their  choice  might  fall  on  some  other  person.     Cer- 


858  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

tainly  they  could  not  choose  Barabbas,  the  worst  of  men!! 
So  thought  Pilate,  perhaps.  But  all  these  expedients  failed. 
The  chief  priests  and  scribes  were  inexorable,  and  their  influ- 
ence with  the  people  was  sufficient  to  frustrate  all  his  plans. 
They  submitted  to  this  restriction,  imposed  arbitrarily,  per- 
haps, by  Pilate,  and  demanded  the  release  of  Barabbas, 
although,  perhaps,  he  was  the  last  man  they  would  have  chosen, 
except  Jesus. 

Let  us  pause  a  moment  upon  this  part  of  Pilate's  conduct. 
In  the  first  place,  he  knew  that  the  motive  of  the  chief  priests 
was  envy.  Mark  xv.  10.  He  knew  it  Avas  our  Lord's  boldness 
in  reproving  hypocrisy  and  vice — his  disinterestedness,  his 
virtue,  his  reputation,  and  influence,  that  provoked  them.  Yet 
he  was  willing  to  abandon  to  the  caprice  of  the  people,  a  man 
whom  he  knew  to  be  innocent.  He  made  the  people  judges  in 
his  place,  and  gave  them  the  right  to  declare  which  in  their 
opinion  was  the  most  deserving  of  their  commiseration.  Again, 
his  proposal  was  to  render  to  the  Lord  Jesus,  as  a  favour,  that 
which  was  due  to  him  as  a  matter  of  justice — that  is,  give  him 
permission  to  live  as  one  pardoned  from  crime.  It  was  a  great 
injustice  to  place  on  a  level  a  man  he  had  declared  to  be  inno- 
cent, who  he  knew  was  persecuted  by  envy,  with  an  atrocious 
criminal — a  murderer ;  and  by  so  doing,  he  prepared  the  people, 
as  far  as  he  could,  to  regard  them  both  in  the  same  rank.  It 
was  a  manifest  contradiction — in  one  breath  to  say,  I  find  no 
fault  in  this  man  at  all — and  in  the  next,  to  say  you  have  a 
custom  that  I  should  release  one  criminal  unto  you  at  this  feast, 
will  you  that  1  release  to  you  the  king  of  the  Jews?  Why 
release  him  as  a  criminal,  if  he  had  committed  no  crime  ? 
Pilate  at  first,  perhaps,  hoped  the  people  would  accept  him, 
without  thus  putting  him  in  comparison  with  another,  and 
hence,  according  to  John,  he  proposed  him  at  first  alone,  calling 
him  the  king  of  the  Jews,  not  in  mockery,  nor  in  the  way  of 
derision,  but  with  the  design  to  excite  in  the  people  a  sense  of 
pity,  or  of  respect,  or  of  shame.  For  opprobrium  would  fall 
on  the  nation,  if  a  person  avowing  himself  to  be  their  king, 
should  sufi"er  capital  punishment  for  that  cause.  All  these 
shifts  were  utterly  unworthy  of  Pilate's  official  character.  He 
knew  that  laws  are  designed  to  protect  the  weak  against  the 
strong,  and  to  afford  an  asylum  to  virtue. 

It  was  at  this  stage  of  the  proceedings,  while  sitting  on  the 
judgment  seat,  that  his  wife  sent  to  him,  saying : 

Matt.  XXVII.  19.  "  Have  nothing  to  do  with  that  just  man, 
for  I  have  suffered  many  things  this  day  in  a  dream,  because  of 
him." 

By  this  circumstance  we  know  that  the  fame  of  our  Lord  had 


DREAM   OF   PILATE'S   WIFE.  359 

reached  the  family  of  PHate.  How  Pilate's  wife  was  informed 
of  the  business  he  was  engaged  about,  we  do  not  know,  but  she 
must  have  obtained  the  information  that  morning ;  because  the 
Lord  had  been  arrested  late  in  the  evening  before,  and  was 
brought  to  Pilate  at  an  early  hour,  and  probably  before  she 
arose  from  her  bed.  It  is  not  probable  she  had  seen  her  hus- 
band since  the  commencement  of  the  business,  or  she  would 
have  personally  told  him  her  impressions  and  her  fears.  Evi- 
dently she  was  deeply  impressed  with  the  urgency  of  the  case, 
or  she  would  not  have  resolved  upon  a  measure  so  unusual. 
Unless  this  disquietude  of  her  mind  had  been  deep,  it  is  not 
probable  that  she  would  have  had  the  courage  to  interfere  in 
this  public  way. 

Some  ancient  authors  have  ascribed  her  dream  to  Satanic 
influence.  Other  authors  have  ascribed  it  to  a  Divine  influence 
— the  design  being,  as  they  suppose,  to  cast  an  additional 
restraint  upon  Pilate,  as  well  as  to  attest  publicly  in  this  way 
the  sanctity  of  our  Lord's  character  as  a  man.  The  fact,  how- 
ever we  account  for  it,  is  very  interesting.  Upon  these  opposite 
suppositions,  we  may  remark  the  latter  is  the  most  probable. 
It  would  be  easy  to  prove  that  the  mystery  of  our  Lord's  person 
was  at  that  time  hidden  from  Satan  and  evil  spirits,  although 
they  felt  his  power  in  a  manner  they  could  not  resist.  We  have 
no  reason  to  think  that  Satan  ventured  to  approach  his  person, 
or  directly  to  molest  him,  from  the  time  he  departed  from  him 
after  his  temptation  in  the  wilderness,  Luke  iv.  13,  until  he 
entered  into  Judas  the  evening  of  the  betrayal.  At  that  time 
Satan  was  formally  absolved  from  the  restraint  our  Lord  had 
exercised  over  him,  and  speedily  destroyed  his  own  power  by 
accomplishing  the  death  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Heb.  ii.  14.  Had 
Satan  been  aware  of  this  consequence  of  the  death  he  was 
intent  upon  accomplishing,  we  may  be  sure,  on  the  ground  of 
our  Lord's  reasoning  in  Matt.  xii.  24 — 26,  he  would  not  have 
instigated  Judas,  the  priests,  the  Jews,  and  Pilate,  to  pursue  the 
work  of  his  destruction,  and  we  have  also  for  this  opinion  the 
authority  of  the  apostle  Paul.  1  Cor.  ii.  8.  The  fact  is,  our 
Lord's  Divine  nature  was  hidden  from  devils,  as  well  as  men, 
and  with  it  the  mystery  of  redemption  through  his  death.  His 
resurrection  from  the  dead,  and  his  ascension  to  glory  and 
power,  revealed  this  mystery  to  Satan,  but  not  to  the  masses  of 
mankind,  who  are  still  deceived  and  led  captive  by  Satan  at  his 
will.  Those  only  of  mankind  who  are  taught  by  the  Spirit  of 
God,  really  comprehend  this  mystery  even  now.  But  a  time  is 
coming  when  it  will  be  openly  revealed  to  all  men,  and  shall  be 
universally  acknowledged  by  all  in  earth  and  all  under  the 
earth,  as  well  as  in  heaven.  Philip,  ii.  9 — 11.     Those  who  have 


860  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

entertained  the  first  of  these  opinions,  suppose  that  Satan  began 
to  perceive  the  true  character  of  the  Lord  and  the  consequences 
of  his  death,  and  therefore  adopted  this  means  to  prevent  it,  as 
if  he  had  repented  or  changed  his  purpose.  But  it  is  more 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  Satan,  as  well  as  Pilate  and  the 
Jews,  regarded  him  merely  as  a  man,  or  as  a  mere  creature,  not 
as  Jehovah  incarnate.  As  to  the  other  supposition,  we  know 
that  in  ancient  times  God  imparted  knowledge  by  means  of 
dreams — as  the  examples  of  Pharaoh,  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  and 
of  Joseph,  the  husband  of  Mary,  attest. 

Whether  the  dream  of  Pilate's  wife  was  divinely  inspired,  we 
are  not  informed.  If  God  did  not  produce  it,  he  permitted  it, 
and  the  Evangelist  thought  it  worthy  of  being  recorded.  Some 
suppose  that  the  whole  scene  through  which  Pilate  had  passed, 
appeared  to  her  in  a  vision,  and  that  thus  she  was  apprized  of 
the  transaction  in  which  her  husband  was  engaged.  In  this 
way  they  account  for  the  haste  and  urgency  of  the  message. 

It  is  certainly  true,  that  God  sometimes  warns  men  who 
are  bent  on  wicked  courses,  in  an  extraordinary  way.  Of  this 
Balaam  is  an  example,  and  it  is  not  incredible  that  God  should 
in  this  way  convey  an  intimation  of  the  guilt  he  was  incurring 
to  Pilate. 

One  thing  is  remarkable — that  while  every  Jew,  so  far  as  we 
know,  was  either  an  enemy  of  the  Lord,  or  silent,  Pilate  and 
his  wife  were  the  only  persons  who  publicly  proclaimed  his 
innocence — a  sign,  if  we  may  interpret  it  by  the  event,  that  the 
glory  of  the  true  religion  was  departing  from  Israel  for  a  time 
to  rest  upon  the  Gentiles. 

The  interruption  occasioned  by  this  message  to  Pilate  was 
brief,  and  we  are  not  informed  of  its  effect  on  his  mind.  The 
chief  priests  and  elders  employed  themselves  in  the  mean  time 
in  exciting  the  multitude  to  the  course  they  desired. 

Matt,  xxvir.  20.  "  They  persuaded  the  multitude  that  they 
should  ask  Barabbas  and  destroy  Jesus." 

Pilate  was  waiting  for  an  answer  to  his  proposition,  when  he 
was  interrupted  by  the  messenger  of  his  wife.  Priests,  scribes, 
and  rulers,  a  numerous  body,  took  advantage  of  the  interruption 
to  influence  the  people.  We  must  imagine  a  large  concourse 
of  people  around  the  judgment  seat  of  Pilate  on  the  pavement. 
This  concourse  was  much  larger,  probably,  than  could  be  ex- 
pected in  ordinary  times.  The  occasion  of  the  Passover  had 
brought  large  numbers  from  alt  parts  of  the  country,  to  partici- 
pate in  the  rites  of  the  festival.  We  may  safely  believe  many 
of  these  strangers  were  present,  having  been  attracted  by  the 
fame  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  as  well  as  by  the  prominence  given  to 
the  matter  by  the  chiefs  of  the  nation.     We  should  try  to  pic- 


CHOICE    OF   BARABBAS   BY   THE    PEOPLE.  361 

ture  to  ourselves  the  zeal,  the  activity,  the  earnestness,  of  these 
bitter  persecutors  of  the  Lord.  They  are  many — they  compose 
the  highest  and  most  respected  classes.  Their  influence  as 
religious  teachers  with  the  masses  is  immense.  Instantly  they 
scatter  among  the  vast  crowd,  and,  like  leaven,  pervade  and 
affect  the  whole.  The  affair  had  reached  its  turning  point. 
Should  the  people  choose  Jesus,  their  labour  was  lost.  No 
artifice,  no  calumny,  is  left  untried — not  an  instant  is  left 
unemployed — every  word  uttered  in  favour  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
is  rebuked  or  treated  with  contempt  or  scorn — the  irresolution, 
the  indifference,  the  inconstancy,  the  ignorance  of  any,  is  turned 
to  their  own  account. 

This  scene  is  a  lesson  for  all  ages.  How  little  reliance  can 
be  put  upon  the  people — how  little  upon  the  favour  of  a  judge, 
unless  followed  by  a  clear,  decisive,  and  resolute  judgment, 
•which  shall  command  the  silence,  if  not  the  respect,  of  crafty 
calumniators.  This  very  withdrawal  of  Pilate's  attention  from 
the  matter  in  hand  by  his  wife's  message,  brief  as  it  was, 
became  the  occasion  of  frustrating  the  object  he  had  in  view, 
through  the  malice,  activity,  and  artifices  of  the  priests,  and 
scribes,  and  rulers.  As  soon  as  Pilate  was  ready  to  receive 
their  answer,  the  multitude  cried  out  all  at  once,  saying, 

Luke  xxiii.  18.  "Away  with  this  man,  and  release  unto 
us  Barabbas." 

Pilate  was  taken  in  his  own  artifices.  His  unjust  policy  was 
turned  against  himself.  His  proposal  in  a  manner  bound  him 
to  abide  by  the  choice  of  the  people.  But  being  still  desirous 
to  release  Jesus, 

Luke  xxiii.  20;  Matt,  xxvii.  21.  "He  spake  to  them 
again,  and  said.  Whether  of  the  twain  will  ye  that  I  release 
unto  you?" 

John  xviii.  40.  "Then  cried  they  all  again,  not  this  man, 
but  Barabbas." 

It  is  not  probable  that  Barabbas  was  present.  It  is  evident 
from  the  form  of  this  answer  that  Jesus  was,  and  that  he  stood 
in  their  view.  Not  this  man,  pointing,  as  it  were,  to  his  per- 
son, and  not  calling  him  by  name. 

The  choice,  thus  repeated,  was  conclusive.  Barabbas,  though 
a  robber  and  a  murderer,  was  to  be  set  free,  and  allowed  once 
mOre  to  enter  on  his  course  of  violence  and  bloodshed. 

Here  let  us  pause  a  moment.  The  choice  of  Barabbas  is 
the  most  striking  instance  of  popular  depravity  on  record. 
Had  Barabbas  been  the  only  prisoner  in  all  Judea,  why  should 
the  people  ask  that  he  should  escape  the  punishment  he  so 
fully  deserved?  He  was  a  seditious  person,  a  robber,  a  mur- 
derer. But  when  put  in  the  alternative  with  one  who  was  well 
46 


362  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

known  throughout  Judea,  Galilee,  and  all  Syria  as  a  benefactor, 
intent  on  doing  good,  having,  as  all  acknowledged,  the  most 
extraordinary  powers  ever  possessed  by  any  of  the  sons  of 
men — who  had  wrought  innumerable  miracles  of  healing,  whose 
wisdom,  and  virtue,  and  eloquence  had  elevated  him  far  above 
all  their  teachers,  their  choice  of  Barabbas  and  rejection  of 
Jesus  excites  our  amazement. 

Some  have  supposed  that  the  name  of  this  atrocious  offender 
against  the  laws  of  God  and  of  man  was  really  Jesus  Barabbas. 
It  is  a  fact  also  that  several  ancient  MSS.,  the  Armenian  trans- 
y-  lation,  and  a  Syrian  translation  from  the  Armenian,  write  his 

name  thus.  See  Mill's  New  Test.,  Knapp's  New  Test.,  Gries- 
hach's  New  Test.  The  Greek  father,  Origen,  in  his  exposition 
of  the  Gospel  by  Matthew,  observes  that  several  MSS.  did  not 
prefix  Jesus  to  the  name  Barabbas;  leaving  us  to  infer  that  the 
greater  number  did.  On  this  ground  many  read  Matt,  xxvii.  17 
thus:  "Whom  will  you  that  I  release  unto  you,  Jesus  who  is 
called  Barabbas,  or  Jesus  who  is  called  Christ?" 

It  was  very  singular  that  two  persons  bearing  the  name 
of  Jesus  should  have  been  thus  contrasted.  The  word  Barab- 
bas, if  it  has  any  signification,  means  "Son  of  the  Father," 
and  Jesus,  we  know,  signifies  Saviour.  Hence  that  which  was 
essential  in  our  Lord,  was  in  name  transferred,  so  to  speak,  to 
this  murderer,  as  if  our  Lord  had  exchanged  his  name  with  him 
upon  taking  his  place. 

But  if  we  leave  the  surface  of  this  transaction,  and  consider 
the  Divine  purpose  concealed,  another  vein  of  reflection  is 
opened.  There  was  a  needs-be  that  Christ,  the  holy  and  the 
just  one,  should  die,  or  the  whole  race  of  Adam  would  be  con- 
demned to  a  second  death,  without  hope  of  redemption.  There 
was  a  needs-be  also  that  Barabbas,  a  notable  sinner,  chosen  on 
this  occasion  as  the  fit  representative  of  the  guilty  race  of  our 
first  father  Adam,  should  be  released  instead  of  Jesus,  or  we  had 
been  still  captives  under  condemnation  by  the  Divine  justice. 

What  Pilate  ignorantly  did  in  pairing  off  the  Holy  One,  the 
true  and  only  begotten  Son  of  the  Father,  against  a  robber  and 
a  murderer,  intimates  to  us  what  passed  in  the  secret  councils  of 
the  Father,  when  our  fallen  race  was  set  in  comparison  or  con- 
trast with  his  only  begotten  Son.     John  iii.  16. 

What  the  Jewish  people  did,  when  they  denied  the  Holy  One 
and  the  Just,  and  required  that  he  should  be  put  to  death,  and 
that  a  murderer  should  be  released  to  them  in  his  stead, 
teaches  us  the  greatness  of  God's  mercy  and  love  to  our  race, 
when  he  delivered  his  Son  for  us  in  our  apostasy  and  crimes. 
See  John  iii.  16;  Rom.  viii.  32;  v.  8;  John  xii.  27. 

The  Divine  mercy  of  the  Father  chose  us,  deserving  as  we 


BARABBAS.  363 

■were  of  his  infinite  displeasure,  in  preference  to  his  own  Son,  in 
■whom  he  was  ever  well  pleased.  He  preferred  that  he  should  for 
a  time  lay  aside  his  glory,  become  incarnate,  and  be  despised 
and  rejected,  loaded  with  insults,  and  reproaches,  and  stripes, 
and  expire  on  the  cross,  rather  than  consent  to  the  punishment 
of  mad,  ungrateful,  impenitent  slaves  of  sin  and  Satan,  who  were 
eager  to  imbrue  their  hands  in  the  blood  of  his  incarnate  Son. 
Equal  also  was  the  mercy  of  God  the  Son,  who  laid  aside  his 
glory,  and  became  incarnate  only  that  he  might  become  a 
victim  and  a  sacrifice  for  our  sins — it  being  impossible  that  any 
other  victim  should  stand  for  them.  See  Heb.  x.  5;  and  1  Pet. 
iii.  18. 

If  we  regard  only  Pilate  and  the  Jews  in  this  matter,  it  was 
an  awful  crime  to  release  Barabbas  instead  of  Jesus ;  but  if  we 
look  at  it  as  the  necessary  means  appointed  by  the  Divine 
mercy  for  redeeming  the  world  from  the  power  of  Satan,  and 
the  curse,  we  see  in  it  the  greatest  exhibition  possible  of  the 
holiness,  justice,  and  mercy  of  the  Divine  government.  Had 
God  treated  sinners  of  mankind  according  to  their  guilt  and 
desert,  and  the  innocent  according  to  his  innocence,  all  our 
sins  had  remained  on  our  own  heads,  and  would  continue  so  to 
remain  for  ever.  But  the  Holy  One  and  the  Just  himself  bore 
our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree,  that  we  being  dead  to  sins, 
should  live  unto  righteousness.  By  his  stripes  we  are  healed. 
1  Pet.  ii.  24. 

It  is  said  of  Barabbas,  that  he  was  a  notable  offender  and  a 
prisoner.  The  substitution  of  our  Lord  for  such  a  person,  holds 
out  a  hope  of  pardon  and  release  to  all  others,  however  aggra- 
vated their  crimes ;  and  in  the  same  way,  the  apostle  Paul 
reasons:  "Howbeit  for  this  cause  I  obtained  mercy,  that  in  me 
first  Jesus  Christ  might  show  forth  all  long-suffering,  for  a  pat- 
tern to  them  Avhich  should  hereafter  believe  on  him  to  life  ever- 
lasting."   1  Tim.  i.  16. 

Some  have  found  in  Barabbas  a  figure  or  a  representative  of 
Adam.  Adam  was  guilty  of  rebellion,  of  robbing  God  of  the 
only  thing  in  the  earth  he  had  reserved  as  a  sign  of  his  sove- 
reignty, and  of  destroying  his  own  race;  Barabbas  was  a 
prisoner  for  the  like  offences — insurrection  or  sedition,  robbery 
and  murder.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Lord  Jesus,  as  the  head 
of  a  new  race  to  be  brought  into  being  through  his  death,  is 
elsewhere,  Rom.  v.  14;  1  Cor.  xv.  45,  put  in  a  parallel  with 
the  first  Adam  and  his  race.  The  latter  cannot  live  and  rise  to 
a  new  life  Avithout  the  former,  and  the  former  cannot  render 
life  to  the  latter,  but  by  consenting  to  die  in  his  place.  Rela- 
tions like  these,  in  fact,  existed  between  Adam  and  Barabbas 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Lord  Christ  on  the  other.    The  Divine 


364  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

mercy  required  the  clioice  which  was  actually  made.  Men  and 
devils,  in  their  madness  and  ignorance,  concurred  in  bringing 
it  about;  but  the  love,  and  wisdom,  and  mercy  of  God  con- 
trolled both  to  the  accomplishment  of  his  own  designs.  Thus 
all  things  unite — the  crime,  the  mystery — the  reasons,  the 
motives. 

The  choice  of  Barabbas  by  the  people  brought  the  question 
back  to  where  it  was  before;  but  with  an  increase  of  difficulty 
to  Pilate.  It  was  now  no  longer  possible  for  him  to  release 
Jesus  under  the  custom;  yet  there  he  stood  bound.  Still 
wavering  and  reluctant,  he  hit  upon  a  still  more  objectionable 
expedient,  that  of  consulting  the  people  as  to  what  he  should  do 
with  the  prisoner. 

Matt,  xxvii.  22;  Mark  xv.  12.  "He  said  unto  them, 
What  will  ye  then  that  I  shall  do  with  Jesus,  which  is  called 
Christ — with  him  whom  ye  call  king  of  the  Jews — seeing  ye 
have  chosen  Barabbas  to  be  released  unto  you?" 

It  is  remarkable  that  Pilate  in  no  instance  said  of  the  Lord 
that  he  claimed  or  pretended  to  be  a  king,  or  that  he  affected 
to  pass  for  the  Messiah.  He  was  very  exact  in  his  expressions, 
and  Divine  Providence  so  ordered  it,  that  he  should  avoid  all 
mistakes  on  this  head.  Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  Pilate  does 
really  and  seriously  ascribe  to  the  Lord  these  characters  or 
qualities,  in  his  intercourse  with  the  priests  and  people,  so 
that  by  the  very  course  of  the  proceedings,  and  the  form  of 
his  judgment,  the  Jews  did  demand  the  crucifixion  of  their 
King  and  Messiah.  He  gave  him  this  title  also  in  the  epigraph 
or  superscription  of  the  cross,  and  refused  to  alter  a  word  of  it, 
though  the  chief  priests  besought  him  to  do  so.  "Write  not 
'the  king  of  the  Jews,'  "  but  that  he  said,  "I  am  king  of  the 
Jews."  The  priests  desired  Pilate  to  write  what  was  not  true, 
and  Pilate  firmly  refused  to  do  so.  Yet  Pilate  did  ascribe  to 
him  his  true  character  repeatedly,  and  in  this  character,  the 
Jews  invoked  upon  him  a  punishment  unknown  to  their  laws. 
Pilate  all  along  appears  to  have  understood  that  the  royalty 
he  claimed  was  connected  with  the  religious  expectations  and 
hopes  of  the  Jews,  and  therefore  was  not  more  obnoxious  to 
punishment  than  were  their  own  religious  expectations  and 
desires.  But  to  resume.  The  people,  thus  appealed  to,  as  if 
their  wishes  were  to  be  consulted  in  a  matter  of  official  judg- 
ment— 

Mark  xv-.  13;  Matt,  xxvit.  "22;  Luke  xxiii.  21.  "Cried 
out  again,"  "and  all  say  unto  him.  Crucify  him,  crucify  him, 
let  him  be  crucified." 

How  strange,  how  unnatural,  that  they  should  desire  the 
infliction  of  a  barbarous  pninishment,  unknown  to  their  laws, 


PREDICTION   OF   THE   MYSTERY   OF   THE   CROSS.  865 

wtich  could  never  have  been  practised  among  them,  had  they 
not  been  a  subject  people.  Pilate  must  have  been  greatly  sur- 
prised by  these  boisterous,  unnatural  cries  of  the  people.  But 
he  had  exposed  himself  to  the  embarrassment  their  demand 
caused  him,  by  putting  the  question  to  them,  and  by  coupling 
with  him  Barabbas,  who  had  been  really  guilty  of  three  crimes 
which  the  Romans  punished  by  crucifixion,  especially  when 
the  offender  was  not  a  Boman  citizen.  Thus  the  imprudence 
of  Pilate,  and  the  crime  of  the  priests  and  the  people,  pre- 
pared the  way  to  the  mystery  of  the  cross,  which,  up  to  this 
moment,  was  so  concealed  and,  to  all  human  appearances,  so 
incredible;  although  the  Lord  himself  had  predicted  it  just 
before  the  close  of  his  ministry  in  the  most  express  terms,  and 
had  alluded  to  it,  in  a  way  which  is  now  very  intelligible  to  us, 
soon  after  the  commencement  of  his  public  ministry:  "He  that 
taketh  not  up  his  cross  and  followeth  after  me,  is  not  worthy  of 
me,"  Matt.  x.  38;  "If  any  will  come  after  me,  let  him  deny 
himself,  and  take  up  his  cross  and  follow  me,"  Matt,  xvi,  24; 
"And  whoever  doth  not  bear  his  cross  and  come  after  me,  can- 
not be  my  disciple."  Luke  xiv.  27;  see  also  Matt,  xxiii.  34. 
These  expressions  show  that  the  manner  of  his  death  was  ever 
present  to  his  mind.  Yet  there  was  nothing  of  this  kind  pre- 
dicted in  the  Scriptures,  which  shows  in  a  more  clear  light  that 
our  Lord's  prophecy  was  Divine.  Before  he  left  Galilee,  he 
predicted  his  crucifixion  in  the  plainest  language,  so  that  his 
disciples  could  no  longer  misapprehend  his  words,  although  they 
could  not  believe  them.  "Behold,  we  go  up  to  Jerusalem,  and 
the  Son  of  Man  shall  be  betrayed  unto  the  chief  priests  and 
unto  the  scribes,  and  they  shall  condemn  him  to  death,  and 
they  shall  deliver  him  to  the  Gentiles  to  mock,  and  to  scourge, 
and  to  crucify,"  &c.  Matt.  xx.  18,  19.  No  crime  was  pun- 
ished by  the  law  of  Moses,  as  we  have  said,  by  crucifixion,  and 
the  observation  of  John  upon  these  words  of  the  Jews  is  impor- 
tant: "It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to  put  any  man  to  death,  that 
the  saying  of  Jesus  might  be  fulfilled  signifying  by  what  death 
he  should  die."  John  xviii.  31,  32.  The  Romans,  without 
knowing  the  prophecies  or  the  prediction  of  Jesus,  had  made 
the  necessary  preparation  for  the  accomplishment  of  both. 
Pilate,  still  unwilling  to  yield  to  the  popular  cry,  expostulated, 
though  feebly,  instead  of  resolving  to  act  firmly,  relying  on  his 
own  judgment  and  authority,  Luke  xxiii.  22,  and  the  third  time 
asked,  "Why,  what  evil  hath  he  done?  I  have  found  no  cause 
of  death  in  him." 

Had  Pilate  been  merely  a  witness,  it  would  have  been  suffi- 
cient to  have  given  the  testimony.  But  he  tvas  a  judge,  and 
his  duty  included  much  more. 


3G6  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

He  was  fluctuating  between  crime  and  virtue,  through  the 
desire  to  conciliate  the  passions  of  wicked,  envious  men,  with  his 
duty.  A  man  may  expect  to  lose  the  aid  of  his  conscience, 
when  he  so  far  forgets  its  obligations  as  to  deliberate  whether 
he  will  obey  or  disregard  its  dictates.  His  disquietude  foretold 
plainly  enough  his  fall.  Even  then  he  had  made  up  his  mind 
to  do  an  act  of  gross  injustice;  for  he  adds, 

Luke  xxiii.  22.  "  I  will  therefore  chastise  him  and  let  him 
go." 

What !  chastise  a  man  in  whom  he  found  no  fault  at  all,  as 
he  had  declared  a  short  time  before !      True,  he  now  modifies 
the  expression  by  saying,  "  I  have  found  no  cause  of  death  in 
him."      Whether  this  change  of  expression  was  designed  and 
significant  or  not,  we  do  not  know.     Perhaps  he  aimed  to  save 
himself  from  the  manifest  contradiction  of  proposing  to  inflict 
even  the  smaller  punishment  on  one  so  entirely  innocent  of  all 
crime.      But  what  we   ought  particularly    to   remark,   is  the 
imprudence  of  Pilate,  in  proposing  to  inflict  the  punishment  of 
scourging,  without  knowing  that  the  enemies  of  the  Lord  would 
be  satisfied  with  it.     Yet  he  binds  himself  to  this  extent,  while 
he  leaves  them  altogether  free.     He  was  weak  and  cowardly  to 
punish  at  all;    and  having  inflicted  the  punishment  proposed, 
we  should  have  no  reason  to  suppose  he  would  be  firm  enough 
to  discharge  him.     He  showed  his  fear  by  yielding  at  all.     He 
ought  to  have  known  the  workings  of  corrupt  human  nature  too 
well,  to   suppose  that  the  furious  passions  of  the  priests  and 
rulers  and  the  populace  would  stop  precisely  at  the  point  he 
should  fix.       The  scourging  which   usually  preceded    capital 
punishment   among   the  Romans,  was   an  incitement   to   the 
people  to  persist  in  their  demand.     Accordingly,  we  find  that 
the  announcement  of  this  purpose   exasperated  the  multitude 
yet  more,  and  perceiving  the  power  they  had  acquired  over 
Pilate  by  their  vociferous  demands,  they  resolved  to  exercise 
it;  for  as  Mark  and  Luke  both  inform  us, 

Mark  xv.  14;  Luke  xxiii.  23.  "They  then  cried  out  the 
more  exceedingly,  and  were  instant  with  loud  voices,  requiring 
that  he  should  be  crucified.  And  the  voices  of  them  and  of 
the  chief  priests  prevailed." 

Had  Pilate  been  a  just  and  a  holy  man,  God  would  not  have 
allowed  him  to  be  brought  into  so  perilous  a  condition,  which 
is  as  much  as  to  say  that  he  would  not  have  been  allowed 
to  become  the  Governor  of  Jud6a  at  that  time.  It  may  be  that 
much  better  men  than  Pilate  coveted  the  ofiice,  which  Tiberius 
Caesar,  the  Roman  Emperor,  conferred  upon  him.  If  the 
afl"airs  of  government  were  managed  then  as  they  are  now, 
we  can  hardly  doubt  that  the  office  of  Governor  of  Judea  Avas 


PILATE   WASHES   HIS   HANDS    OF   CHRIST'S   BLOOD.  367 

greatly  coveted  and  sought  after  by  many  who  looked  upon 
Pilate's  success  with  envy.  Yet  when  we  look  upon  these 
times  in  the  light  of  the  Scriptures,  and  of  those  Divine 
purposes  which  were  then  to  be  fulfilled,  we  can  see  mercy  in 
the  failure  of  Pilate's  competitors,  and  judgment  upon  Pilate. 
There  was  a  needs-he  that  Christ  should  suffer  at  that  time,  by 
wicked  hands,  and  it  was  so  ordered  in  the  providence  of  God, 
that  the  voluntary  wickedness  of  Pilate  and  of  that  generation 
of  Jews  should  be  the  instrument. 

^iATT.  XXVII.  24,  "When  Pilate  saw  that  he  could  not 
prevail,  but  rather  that  a  tumult  was  made,  he  took  water  and 
washed  his  hands  before  the  multitude,  saying,  I  am  innocent 
of  the  blood  of  this  just  person:  see  ye  to  it." 

Pilate  resorted  to  this  ceremony,  probably  while  sitting  on 
the  judgment  seat  on  the  pavement  in  the  open  air,  and  of 
course  in  the  presence  of  an  immense  multitude  of  Jews  from 
all  parts  of  the  country.  It  is  computed,  by  some  authors,  that 
at  the  festival  of  the  Passover,  there  were  three  millions 
of  people  in  and  near  the  city  of  Jerusalem.  See  Vossius' 
Harmony,  and  Josephus.  The  object  of  the  ceremony  thus 
publicly  performed  was  to  clear  himself  of  the  guilt  of  the 
unjust  and  cruel  judgment  he  was  about  to  render.  That  such 
a  ceremony  had  long  been  in  practice  among  the  Jews  is 
proved  by  Ps.  xxvi.  6,  where  David  says,  "I  will  wash  my 
hands  in  innocency."  See  also  Deut.  xxi.  6.  We  also  use  a 
similar  expression,  which  we  derive  from  the  same  source. 
The  ceremony  was  perfectly  natural.  It  was  a  symbolical 
action,  which  was  well  calculated,  under  the  circumstances,  to 
make  a  deep  impression.  Every  bystander  on  that  occasion, 
though  they  might  not  have  heard'  the  words  of  Pilate,  perfectly 
comprehended  the  meaning  of  this  action.  It  is  said  that  such 
a  custom  prevailed  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans  also.  It  is 
founded  upon  the  idea,  that  sin  and  guilt  is  a  pollution,  which 
needs  to  be  removed  by  a  washing.  It  is  not  important  to 
inquire  whether  Pilate  had  in  his  mind  the  Jewish  or  Roman 
custom.  But  how  strange  that  a  judicial  officer,  and  a  governor 
attended  by  an  armed  force,  should  resort  to  such  a  means  to 
be  rid  of  the  guilt  of  an  official  act  which  he  was  about  to 
perform,  as  if  such  a  ceremony  could  prevent  a  stain  of  the 
guilt  of  an  unjust  judgment.  While  it  convicted  Pilate  himself 
of  the  most  criminal  inconsistency,  it  was  a  most  remarkable 
testimony  to  our  Lord's  innocence.  We  read  nothing  like 
it  in  history.  Pilate  is  not  content  to  declare  several  times 
publicly,  in  spite  of  calumnious  accusations  persevered  in 
before  the  people,  that  he  found  no  fault  in  him.  Nor  is 
it  enough  in  his  judgment  to  say  in  figurative  language,  that 


368  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

he  washes  his  hands  of  the  business — that  he  takes  no  part  in 
the  accusations  made  against  the  Lord  Jesus,  nor  in  his  death. 
He  determines  to  perform  a  public  ceremony,  while  sitting 
on  his  tribunal,  in  the  view  of  the  immense  multitude  gathered 
before  it,  consisting  no  doubt,  as  we  have  intimated,  in  part  of 
strangers,  whom  the  feast  had  brought  to  Jerusalem,  as  an 
attestation  which  could  not  be  obscured  or  perverted;  and  as  a 
proof  to  all  time  of  the  injustice  of  the  act  he  himself  was 
about  to  perform.  He  therefore  took  water,  and  probably  in 
the  most  solemn  and  impressive  manner  he  was  capable  of, 
washed  his  hands  before  the  multitude,  saying  audibly,  "  I  am 
innocent  of  the  blood  of  this  just  one:  ye  shall  see,"  for  such 
is  the  exact  meaning. 

If  we  reflect  upon  this  transaction,  it  will  appear  very  extraor- 
dinary. Nothing  short  of  the  wisdom  and  power  of  God  could 
thus  connect  with  the  death  of  the  Lord  Jesus  so  many  justifica- 
tory circumstances,  without  making  them  avail  to  his  deliver- 
ance— circumstances  which  proclaim  in  the  most  impressive  form 
his  more  than  human  virtue,  and  yet  without  preventing  the 
accomplishment  of  those  prophecies,  which  foretold  that  he 
should  be  numbered  with  transgressors,  and  be  treated  as  though 
he  were  one.  The  wdiole  proceeding,  taken  together,  was  a  most 
solemn  acquittal  of  all  crime,  followed  by  a  punishment  which 
was  inflicted  only  upon  great  malefactors. 

Matt,  xxvii.  25.  "  Then  answered  all  the  people  and  said, 
His  blood  be  on  us,  and  on  our  children." 

These  words  were  uttered  in  answer  to  those  of  Pilate,  in 
which  he  vainly  attempted  to  cast  on  the  people  the  responsi- 
bility of  the  unjust  act  he  was  about  to  perform.  Pilate  had 
intimated  to  them  his  belief,  that  they  should  some  day  suffer 
for  their  cruel  and  unjust  conduct,  and  the  meaning  of  their 
response  may  be  thus  expressed:  "Your  fear  does  not  affect 
us;  we  have  no  fear  that  the  blood  of  this  man,  whom  you  call 
just,  will  be  demanded  of  us  or  our  posterity.  We  willingly 
consent  to  bear  all  the  vengeance  which  the  Divine  Justice  shall 
see  proper  to  inflict.  We  consent  to  be  responsible  for  what- 
ever injustice  there  may  be,  and  to  bear  the  punishment  of  it." 
There  was,  however,  a  meaning  in  these  words  which  the  blinded 
multitude  did  not  intend,  and  which,  nevertheless,  has  been  ful- 
filled in  respect  to  many  of  that  race,  and  will  yet  be  fulfilled 
in  respect  to  the  entire  nation.  "The  blood  of  Christ  cleanseth 
from  all  sin.  It  speaketh  better  things  than  that  of  Abel," 
Heb.  xii.  24;  and  this  imprecation,  uttered  in  the  spirit  of  hate, 
at  that  time,  will  hereafter  be  uttered  in  the  spirit  of  mourning 
and  bitterness,  and  be  answered  with  the  greatest  of  blessings. 
Zech  xii.  10. 


JESUS   SCOURGED.  369 

Mark  xv.  15;  Luke  xxiii.  24,  25.  "And  so  Pilate  having 
resolved  to  content  the  people,  gave  sentence  that  it  should  be 
as  they  required,  and  he  released  unto  them  him  that  for 
sedition  and  murder  was  cast  into  prison,  whom  they  had 
desired." 

Thus  ended  all  Pilate's  efforts  to  reconcile  the  demands  of 
justice  and  his  own  conscience  with  his  fears.  With  washed 
hands  and  a  polluted  mouth,  he  sends  Jesus  to  the  cross,  while 
pronouncing  him  innocent;  because  he  had  not  the  firmness  to 
resist  men  whom  he  contemned  in  his  heart,  and  on  other 
occasions  had  treated  with  great  indignity.  See  note,  Pict. 
Bib.,  Matt,  xxvii.  2,  p.  73;  John  xviii.  12,  p.  237.  Yet  Pilate 
has  not  been  without  followers  in  this  particular,  many  of  whom 
do  not  deserve  to  be  compared  with  him  in  courage  or  solicitude 
to  save  the  innocent. 

John  xix.  1.     "Then  Pilate  took  Jesus  and  scourged  him." 

John  is  the  only  Evangelist  who  states  this  fact  in  positive 
and  direct  terms;  although  Matthew  and  Mark  do  so  incident- 
ally. Matt,  xxvii.  26 ;  Mark  xv.  15.  Luke  records  merely  the 
words  of  Pilate,  "I  will  therefore  chastise  him  and  let  him  go," 
without  saying  that  this  declaration  of  Pilate  was  executed. 
Luke  xxiii.  16.  But  John,  who  states  the  fact  positively,  enters 
into  no  detail;  yet  insinuates  that  it  was  extremely  cruel,  inas- 
much as  it  was  done  with  the  hope  of  softening  the  hard  hearts 
of  the  enemies  of  Jesus,  and  to  influence  them  not  to  demand 
his  death.  The  Romans  scourged  with  rods,  or  with  whips,  or 
thongs,  which  were  often  armed  with  little  bones  or  knots.  The 
term  used  by  Matthew  and  Mark  to  signify  scourge,  is  derived 
from  the  Latin  Jiagellum,  from  which  we  get  the  word  fiagella- 
tion.  Flagellum  is  derived  from  flagrum,  a  whip,  or  from  Jiagro, 
to  burn,  on  account  of  the  burning  sensation  it  occasions.* 
There  can  be  no  doubt,  from  the  terms  used  by  Matthew,  Mark, 
and  John,  that  it  was  very  cruel,  and  a  literal  fulfilment  of  the 
prophecy  of  Isaiah,  liii.  5,  10,  and  1.  5,  6 :  "  He  was  wounded  for 
our  transgressions,  and  bruised  for  our  iniquities;  the  chastise- 

*  The  Roman  method  of  scourging  differed  from  the  Jewish  in  several 
respects.  The  Jewish  was  limited  to  forty  stripes,  from  which  it  was  the 
practice  to  deduct  one,  either  from  motives  of  humanity  or  through  fear  of 
mistalce.  Deut.  xxv.  3;  2  Cor.  xi.  24.  The  Romans  varied  in  the  number. 
The  Jews  scourged  with  loro  vitulino,  a  leather  thong  simply,  according  to  the 
Rabbins.  The  Romans  used  rods,  whips,  or  thongs  {aculeatisflagclUs,)  as  stated 
above.  They  also  bound  the  person  doomed  to  be  scourged,  to  a  column,  hav- 
ing first  entirely  denuded  the  body,  abducite  hiinc  intro  atque  astrinyite  ad  colum- 
nam  forliter.  Plant.  Bacch.  Act  iv.,  Sc.  vii.,  Cicero  Oral,  pro  Rabirio.  See 
John  Leusden's  Philologus  Hehrceo  miztus.  Dissert.  49th,  part  2d.  Some  authors 
have  undertaken  to  say  how  many  blows  were  inflicted  by  Pilate's  command  on 
our  blessed  Lord;  but  they  can  have  no  means  of  knowing  anything  about  it. 
See  Vossius'  Marmony,  lib.  ii.  cap.  v.  2  17. 

47 


370  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

ment  of  our  peace  was  upon  him,  and  with  his  stripes  we  are 

healed Yet  it  pleased  the  Lord  to  bruise  him,"  &c. 

These  expressions,  which  are  not  exaggerated,  signify  more 
than  we  can  imagine. 

Scourging  with  the  Romans  was  sometimes  used  as  a  species 
of  torture.  It  was  resorted  to  sometimes  in  order  to  extort  a 
confession,  as  we  learn  by  Acts  xxii.  24.  In  the  Apocryphal 
book  called  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  chap.  ii.  19,  we  have  some 
evidence  of  the  use  of  torture  among  the  Jews  for  the  same 
purpose.  "Let  us  examine  him  with  despitefulness  and  tor- 
ture, that  we  may  know  his  weakness  and  prove  his  patience. 
Let  us  condemn  him  with  a  shameful  death;  for  by  his  own 
sayiugs  he  shall  be  respected." 

There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  the  bodily  suiferings 
of  our  Lord  were  inflicted  through  the  instigation  of  Satan. 
From  the  ending  of  the  temptation  in  the  wilderness,  before 
our  Lord  entered  upon  his  public  ministry,  until  the  night  in 
which  he  was  betrayed,  Satan  was  like  that  unclean  spirit,  dis- 
lodged from  his  house,  mentioned  in  Matt.  xii.  43;  see  verses 
27  to  29  also.  Without  penetrating  the  mystery  of  our  Lord's 
person,  he  felt  his  own  power  crippled  even  by  the  Lord's 
presence.  He  could  not  resist  his  word.  Observe  his  lan- 
guage during  the  temptation:  "If  thou  be  the  Son  of  God," 
(or  a  son  of  God.)  Matt.  iv.  3,  6;  Luke  iv.  3,  9.  Had  he 
really  known  the  Lord  Jesus  to  be  Jehovah  incarnate,  his 
Creator  and  the  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  it  is  incredible  that 
he  even  should  have  approached  him  in  the  way  of  temptation; 
and  although  he  spoke  to  him,  as  it  were,  doubtingly,  as  though 
he  might  be  the  Son,  or  a  son  of  God,  we  have  no  reason  to 
suppose  he  understood  "the  Son  of  God"  to  be  God  himself  in 
the  person  of  the  Son,  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  but 
rather  a  mere  man,  whom  God  had  wonderfully  favoured.  The 
mystery  of  the  incarnation  was  hidden  from  him,  as  well  as 
from  all  created  beings.  This  mystery  was  not  disclosed  until 
the  resurrection.  Rom.  i.  4,  Being  ignorant,  therefore,  of  the 
Divine  nature  of  the  Lord,  when  he  was  liberated  from  the 
restraint  thus  laid  upon  him,  he  was  active  in  the  infliction  of 
sufierings,  having  already  found  that  temptations  by  way  of 
allurement  could  not  influence  him.  It  is  remarkable,  that 
although  Satan  was  free  to  compass  the  death  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  yet  there  was  still  one  restriction  laid  upon  him.  For 
after  he  had  entered  into  Judas-,  the  Lord  said  to  him,  "that 
thou  doest,  do  quickly."  This  permission  gave  him  no  power 
to  prolong  the  sufferings  of  the  Lord;  for  there  was  a  necessity 
that  he  should  suffer  at  that  particular  time. 

What  an  exhibition  this  transaction  gives  us  of  the  love  of 


THE   COHORTS.  371 

God,  and  of  the  Son,  in  thus  submitting  to  be  treated  as  a  con- 
demned and  guilty  slave !  And  what  an  idea  it  affords  of  the 
severity  of  the  Divine  justice!  How  can  the  impenitent  sinner 
escape  this  justice,  if  he  treads  under  foot  the  blood  of  Christ 
as  a  common  thing !  What  a  commentary  also  is  it  upon  the 
words  of  Paul  in  Heb.  xii.  6:  "For  whom  the  Lord  loveth  he 
chasteneth,  and  scourgeth  every  son  whom  he  receiveth,"  none 
excepted,  not  even  his  only  begotten ;  who,  though  without  sin, 
was  not  without  chastisement.  Fear  not  then  the  rod,  but  fear 
lest  you  may  not  be  reckoned  a  son.  So  thought  the  apostles; 
for  when  they  were  beaten  by  command  of  the  Jewish  council, 
they  departed  rejoicing  that  they  were  counted  worthy  to  suffer 
shame  for  the  name  of  Jesus. 

Matt,  xxvii.  27 ;  Mark  xv.  16.  "  Then  the  soldiers  of  the 
governor  took  Jesus  and  led  him  away  into  the  common  hall, 
called  Prsetorium,  and  they  called  together  the  whole  band." 

The  place  from  which  they  led  him  was  the  judgment  seat  on 
the  pavement,  where  he  had  stood  bound,  in  the  view  of  Pilate 
and  the  multitude,  without  saying  one  word.  The  Prsetorium, 
you  remember,  was  Pilate's  residence,  and  near  by.  The  com- 
mon hall  was  within  the  Prsetorium.  Some  suppose  that  this 
expression  should  be  translated  into  the  court  of  the  Pratorium. 
The  meaning  is,  the  soldiers  of  the  governor  led  Jesus  from 
the  place  where  he  was  standing,  before  the  palace  of  the 
governor,  into  an  inner  court,  and  into  the  palace  itself.  It 
appears  from  these  verses  that  only  a  part,  probably  a  small 
part,  of  the  soldiers  were  present  on  the  pavement  at  this  time. 
The  whole  band  here  spoken  of  was  a  Roman  cohort,  which 
contained  several  companies,  each  consisting  of  one  hundred 
men.  Cornelius,  mentioned  Acts  x.  1,  was  a  centurion,  or  cap- 
tain of  one  hundred  men,  in  a  cohort  called  the  Italian.  Julius, 
mentioned  Acts  xxvii.  1,  was  a  centurion,  or  captain  of  one 
hundred  men,  in  another  cohort,  called  the  cohort  of  Augustus. 
The  officer  who  commanded  the  whole  cohort,  was  called  a  tri- 
bune. The  number  of  men  composing  a  cohort  is  not  certain. 
In  fact,  it  was  not  fixed,  nor  always  the  same.  Lipsius  says 
the  number  was  about  five  hundred  and  twenty. 

The  whole  band  or  cohort  having  been  called  together,  the 
tribune,  of  course,  was  at  their  head.  We  are  to  understand 
then,  that  the  things  next  mentioned  by  the  Evangelists  were 
done  by  the  tribune  and  the  cohort,  and  the  place  where  they 
were  gathered  must  have  been  of  considerable  size.  We  must 
not  confound  this  cohort  with  another  which  was  assigned  to 
guard  the  temple.  This  cohort  depended  upon  the  priests  and 
Levites,  to  whose  immediate  command  it  was  subject,  but,  of 
course,   under  the  control  of    the  governor.     It  was  to  this 


372  NOTES   ON  SCRIPTURE. 

cohort  Pilate  referred,  Matt,  xxvii.  65,  when  he  said  to  the 
priests,  "Ye  have  a  watch,"  that  is,  a  military  guard,  as  is  clear 
by  Matt,  xxviii.  12.  It  was  this  cohort  also,  or  a  part  of  it, 
which  attended  Judas  to  the  garden  of  Gethsemane,  and  who 
were  struck  to  the  ground  by  the  word  of  Jesus.  John  xviii.  3 — 6. 
The  centurion  spoken  of  in  Matt,  xxvii.  54,  probably  belonged 
to  the  cohort  which  was  attached  to  the  palace  of  Pilate,  for 
the  defence  of  the  city,  and  not  to  that  which  was  assigned  to 
the  temple. 

It  is  not  certain  that  all  the  soldiers  did  within  the  court  of 
the  palace,  was  done  by  the  express  order  of  Pilate,  or  within 
his  view.  We  cannot  doubt,  however,  that  he  permitted  it,  with 
the  design  to  avoid  condemning  the  Lord  to  death.  He  thought, 
probably,  that  the  severity  of  the  scourging  would  move  the 
people  to  pity,  and  that  they  mi^ht,  of  their  own  accord,  exon- 
erate him  from  proceeding  further. 

If  we  suppose  that  these  cruelties  were  inflicted  by  the  tribune 
and  his  soldiers,  without  the  express  command  of  Pilate,  what  a 
picture  it  gives  us  of  their  barbarity !  They  had  not  the  mo- 
tives of  the  priests  to  incite  them — they  felt  no  envy.  Nothing 
short  of  the  satanic  love  of  inflicting  pain  and  toi'ture  could 
have  influenced  them ;  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  they  were 
instigated  to  these  excesses  of  cruelty  by  Satan.  But  what  we 
are  especially  to  notice  is,  that  in  this  part  of  the  transaction 
the  Jews  had  no  share.  It  was  the  crime  of  the  Gentiles.  Yet 
it  was  the  mad  fury  of  the  Jews  that  led  to  these  excesses;  for 
Pilate,  had  he  been  left  to  himself,  would  have  let  him  go.  Acts 
iii.  13. 

But  observe,  this  was  but  a  repetition,  though  with  greater 
severity,  of  the  indignities  practised  but  a  few  hours  before,  in 
the  High  Priest's  palace,  by  the  cohort  attached  to  the  temple; 
for  we  are  told  (John  xviii.  22)  that  one  of  the  ofiicers  struck 
Jesus  with  the  palm  of  his  hand,  for  which  act  Jesus  reproved 
him,  and  afterwards  the  men  that  held  him  (Luke  xxii.  63) 
mocked  him,  and  some  (Mark  xiv.  65)  began  to  spit  on  him ; 
that  they  spit  in  his  face,  and  buffeted  him  (Matt.  xxvi.  67,) 
and  then  blindfolded  him,  and  struck  him  in  the  face  (Luke 
xxii.  64,)  and  in  derision  said:  "Prophesy  unto  us,  thou  Christ; 
who  is  he  that  smote  thee?"  Matt.  xxvi.  68.  And  many  other 
things  they  said  blasphemously,  Luke  xxii.  65,  and  even  the 
servants  did  strike  him  with  the  palms  of  their  hands.  Mark 
xiv.  65.  If  we  attentively  consider  the  narrative,  we  may  find 
for  these  indignities  practised  by  the  soldiers  attached  to  the 
temple,  the  servile  disposition  to  curry  favour  with  the  priests, 
which  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  influenced  the  soldiers  attached 
to  the  palace  of  Pilate.     In  fine,  we  shall  search  in  vain  for  any 


INDIGNITIES   AND   CRUELTIES   PUT   UPON  JESUS.  373 

explanation  of  the  scene  in  the  court  of  the  Prnotorium,  but 
the  instigation  of  Satan.  The  inhumanity,  the  insolence,  their 
insulting  conduct  against  a  man  whom  the  governor  had  declared 
innocent,  repeatedly,  in  the  most  solemn  manner,  were  the 
promptings  of  Satan,  and  designed  to  extort  from  him  some 
sign  or  mark,  by  which  that  foul  spirit  could  know  who  he  was. 
It  was  inexplicable  to  him,  that  he  had  so  suddenly  acquired 
the  ascendency,  as  he  supposed,  over  that  mysterious  man, 
whose  very  word  had  hitherto  deprived  him  of  all  his  power. 
We  will  now  proceed  with  the  narrative. 

The  whole  cohort  having  been  assembled  in  the  court,  Matt. 
xxvii.  28 ;  John  xix.  2,  "  They  stripped  him,  [of  his  clothing] 
and  put  on  him  a  purple  [or  scarlet]  robe  or  mantle," 

The  Evangelists  use  different  words  to  express  the  colour  of 
the  robe;  but  there  is  no  greater  difference  between  them,  than 
between  the  words  red  and  reddish.  Purple  is  the  more 
sombre,  and  scarlet  the  more  lively  colour.  Some  suppose 
that  what  we  call  crimson  is  the  same  colour  which  is  here 
called  purple. 

Here,  for  the  second  time,  we  see  Jesus,  the  Lord  of  glory, 
dressed  in  purple  by  men  who  made  a  mockery  of  his  royalty. 
Herod  and  the  Romans  unite  in  this  mockery  of  the  King  of 
kings,  whose  royalty  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  shall  one  day 
acknowledge.     Philip,  ii.  10. 

We  see  here,  that  these  brutal  soldiers  take  from  him,  and 
put  upon  him  what  they  please.  They  strip  him  of  his 
clothinix,  to  increase  his  suffering  under  their  scourgino-.  He 
endures  all  without  uttering  a  word,  as  though  he  were  insen- 
sible. Read  Psalm  civ.  2;  Luke  ix.  29;  Matt.  xvii.  2,  in  this 
connection. 

Matt,  xxvii.  29.  "  And  when  they  had  plaited  a  crown  of 
thorns,  they  put  it  on  his  head,  and  a  reed  in  his  right  hand, 
and  they  bowed  the  knee  before  him." 

It  did  not  satisfy  the  cruelty  of  the  soldiers  to  make  a  crown 
of  a  single  thorny  branch,  but  they  interwove  several  branches, 
arranging  the  points  of  the  thorns,  it  is  supposed,  so  as  to  press 
upon  different  parts  of  the  head.  Nor  was  it  enough  simply  to 
place  a  crown  of  ignominy  and  pain  on  his  head,  so  as  to  rest 
there;  but,  as  we  may  infer  from  the  inhumanity  of  the  soldiers, 
who  affected  to  join  cruelty  to  derision  and  mockery,  they 
forced  it  on  his  head,  and  then  smote  him  on  the  head  thus 
covered,  as  we  shall  soon  learn.  Matt,  xxvii.  30,  with  the  reed 
they  had  placed  in  his  right  hand  as  a  sceptre. 

We  are  reminded  by  this  passage  of  the  primeval  curse. 
God  said  to  Adam,  "Cursed  is  the  ground  for  thy  sake;  thorns 
also  and  thistles  shall  it  bring  forth  to  thee."     Gen.  iii.  17. 


374  NOTES  ON   SCRIPTURE. 

The  thorn  and  thistle  are  the  exterior  emblems  of  the  curse, 
and  thus  regarded,  they  cover,  as  with  a  veil,  things  much  more 
terrible — all  the  consequences  of  the  curse — sorrow,  suflFering, 
toil,  death.  Lamech,  the  father  of  Noah,  seems  thus  to  have 
understood  it,  as  we  may  infer  from  Gen.  v.  29.  But  Noah, 
though  his  name  signifies  rest  or  comfort,  did  not  make  the 
earth  less  fertile  in  thorns,  nor  relieve  man  of  the  labour  neces- 
sary to  remove  them.  In  Christ  alone  will  the  curse  be 
removed,  and  it  pleased  the  Almighty,  not  only  to  bruise  him, 
but  to  pierce  him  with  .this  emblem  of  the  curse,  which  made 
Grotius  say,  "  The  curse  began  in  thorns,  and  ended  in  thorns, 
but  with  the  lily  in  the  midst  of  the  thorns."  See  Grotius  on 
Matt,  xxvii.  29. 

When  the  soldiers  crowned  the  Lord  with  thorns,  they 
crowned  him  with  the  emblem  or  symbol  of  the  curse,  so  that 
Christ,  as  the  second  Adam,  bore  the  curse  pronounced  against 
the  first  Adam. 

Mark  xv.  19;  Matt,  xxvii.  29,  30;  John  xix.  3.  "And 
they  worshipped  him,  and  mocked  him,  saying,  Hail,  king  of 
the  Jews !  and  they  smote  him  with  their  hands,  and  they  spit 
upon  him,  and  took  the  reed,  and  smote  him  on  the  head." 

There  never  has  been,  and  there  never  will  be,  another 
example  of  such  indignities  borne  with  such  patience.  But 
nothing  less  could  expiate  and  remove  the  curse.  The  Lord  of 
glory,  by  whose  power  and  providence  the  universe  is  sustained, 
silently  and  meekly  as  a  lamb,  bore  the  mockery  of  the  licen- 
tious soldiery,  as  the  appointed  means  of  redemption.  For 
says  the  prophet  Isaiah,  liii.  3,  4,  "  He  is  despised  and  rejected 
of  men — a  man  of  sorrows,  and  acquainted  with  grief — and  we 
hid,  as  it  were,  our  faces  from  him.  He  was  despised,  and  we 
esteemed  him  not.  Surely  he  hath  borne  our  griefs,  and  car- 
ried our  sorrows.  Yet  we  did  esteem  him  stricken  and  smitten 
of  God,  and  afilicted."  This  transaction  in  the  court  of  the 
palace  of  Pilate,  and  that  which  had  occurred  a  few  hours 
before  in  the  palace  of  the  high  priest,  were  the  fulfilment  of 
Isa.  1.  6 :  "I  gave  my  back  to  the  smiters,  and  my  cheeks  to 
them  that  plucked  off  the  hair.  I  hid  not  my  face  from  shame 
and  spitting." 

John  xix.  4.  "Pilate  therefore  went  forth  again,  and  saith 
unto  them.  Behold,  I  bring  him  forth  unto  you,  that  ye  may 
know  that  I  find  no  fault  in  him." 

The  context  shows  that  Pilate  went  out  of  the  Paetorium  to 
the  judgment  seat,  a  little  in  advance  of  Jesus,  having  given 
orders  to  the  soldiers  to  follow  him  with  their  prisoner.  As 
soon  as  he  had  uttered  the  words  just  quoted,  the  Lord  Jesus 
came  within  view,  and  Pilate  added,  "Behold  the  man,"  an 


JESUS  AGAIN  PRESENTED  BY  PILATE  TO  THE  PEOPLE.      375 

expression  much  of  the  same  import  as  "here  he  comes,"  or 
"here  he  is."  But  why  shouhl  Pilate  bring  him  forth  for  the 
reason  he  gave?  We  suppose  that,  according  to  the  usual 
course  of  proceeding  in  such  cases,  the  soldiers  took  the  con- 
demned person  from  the  court  of  the  palace  directly  to  the 
place  of  execution ;  but  this  course  was  departed  from  by  Pilate 
for  the  reason  he  gave.  We  must  bear  it  in  mind,  that  Pilate 
had  already  given  sentence  that  it  should  be  as  they  required, 
Luke  xxiii.  24 ;  and  the  scourging,  and  other  cruelties  inflicted 
in  the  court,  were  preparatory  to  the  execution.  Yet  Pilate,  as 
if  the  matter  were  still  depending,  interrupts  the  execution,  in 
the  way  mentioned  in  this  verse,  and  the  sense  of  his  words  to 
the  people  may  be  expressed  thus:  "Although  I  have  given 
sentence  that  this  man  should  be  crucified,  and  the  soldiers 
have,  by  scourging,  begun  the  execution  of  that  sentence,  yet, 
instead  of  sending  him  to  the  place  of  crucifixion,  I  bring  him 
forth  again  to  you,  that  you  may  know  that  I  am  most  firmly 
persuaded  of  his  innocence."  He  hoped  that  the  inhumanity 
of  the  soldiers  would  excite  their  compassion.  Pilate,  in  fact, 
employed  every  means  to  save  Jesus,  except  one,  and  that  was 
firmness,  founded  upon  the  purpose  to  prefer  justice  to  every 
other  interest  or  motive,  without  which  even  firmness  can  efi'ect 
but  little. 

John  xix.  5.  "  Then  came  Jesus  forth,  wearing  the  crown  of 
thorns  and  the  purple  robe" — 

And,  as  there  is  reason  to  believe,  bearing  in  his  hand  the 
reed.  The  purple  robe  was  put  upon  him  to  deride  his  royalty, 
and  that  he  still  wore.  Why  not,  then,  the  reed,  seeing  that 
had  been  put  into  his  hands  for  the  same  purpose? 

John  xix.  5.     "And  Pilate  said  to  them,  Behold  the  man!" 

We  may  regard  this  act  of  Pilate  as  the  presentation  to  the 
people  of  the  true  Messiah  they  had  so  long  expected — the 
most  august  function  possible  for  any  man  in  any  station  to 
perform.  Yet  a  Messiah  already  rejected  by  the  people  whom 
he  came  to  bless  and  to  save ;  and  through  their  means  crowned 
with  a  diadem  of  thorns,  livid  with  bruises,  bearing  in  his  hand 
a  feeble  reed,  and  covered  by  a  purple  robe,  yet  more  deeply 
coloured  with  his  own  blood. 

John  xix.  6.  "When  therefore  the  chief  priests  and  the 
officers  saw  him,  they  cried  out,  saying.  Crucify,  crucify." 

Observe  here  a  peculiarity.  Before  the  scourging,  the  priests 
and  rulers  were  successful  in  inciting  the  people  boisterously  to 
demand  the  crucifixion  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  Luke  xxiii.  21 ;  Matt, 
xxvii.  20,  22 ;  but  on  this  occasion  it  was  only  the  priests  and 
their  underlings  who  cried  out.  The  priests  knew  the  effect 
such  a  sight  would  be  likely  to  produce  upon  the  people,  and 


376  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

they  cried  out  the  instant  Pilate  presented  Jesus  to  them  in 
such  a  pitiable  condition,  and  excited  those  in  their  service  to 
do  so,  probably  in  order  to  prevent  the  people  from  a  moment's 
reflection,  and  to  extinguish  by  their  cruel  cries  any  rising  emo- 
tion of  pity. 

John  xrx.  6.  "Pilate  then  saith  unto  them,  Take  ye  him 
and  crucify  him,  for  I  find  no  fault  in  him." 

We  are  not  to  understand  these  words  as  a  permission  seri- 
ously granted  the  Jews  to  inflict  that  punishment.  It  was 
rather  a  reproach  of  their  mad  obstinacy.  As  if  he  had  said, 
"  Crucify  him  yourselves,  if  you  dare  to  do  so,  but  do  not 
expect  me  to  be  the  minister  of  your  passions.  You  persist  in 
saying  that  he  is  a  guilty  man,  but  you  do  not  prove  it.  I 
have  examined  him  in  private  and  in  public,  and  I  find  him 
innocent.  I  have  already  done  too  much.  I  have  conde- 
scended to  the  utmost  limits  possible,  and  I  am  resolved  to  go 
no  further."  But  Pilate,  if  such  was  his  meaning,  did  not 
know  his  own  heart.  His  conscience  had  too  often  suffered 
violence  to  retain  its  authority.  He  should  have  listened  to 
its  first  dictates,  then  it  would  have  served  him  at  the  critical 
moment. 

We  observe  here  another  reiteration  of  the  innocence  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  by  Pilate,  and  that,  too,  after  he  had  delivered 
him  to  be  crucified.  The  providence  of  God  so  appointed  it, 
in  order  to  remove  every  pretext  to  future  calumnies.  The 
cross  of  Christ  must  not  be  dishonoured,  even  in  the  view  of 
men,  with  the  least  suspicion,  much  less  with  the  stain  of 
personal  guilt;  for  then  it  could  not  have  been  regarded  as  a 
voluntary  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  others.  The  Evangelists 
who  record  these  facts,  wrote  while  they  were  fresh  in  the 
public  mind,  and  they  attested  the  truth  of  their  words  with 
their  lives.  The  malice  of  the  Jews  was  unable  to  invent  any- 
thing to  the  contrary,  which  bore  even  the  slightest  proba- 
bility of  truth. 

John  XIX.  7.  "The  Jews  answered  him:  We  have  a  law, 
and  by  our  law  he  ought  to  die,  because  he  made  himself  the 
Son  of  God." 

Perhaps  this  verse  should  be  read  with  an  emphasis  on  the 
pronouns  we  and  our.  As  if  they  had  said,  "  However  inno- 
cent he  may  appear  to  you,  when  judged  according  to  your 
law,  you  should  remember  that  ive  also  have  a  law,  binding 
upon  him  and  all  Jews,  which  we,  as  Jews,  chiefly  regard  in 
this  business,  and  which  you  also  would  be  justified  in  regarding, 
by  which  he  ought  to  die,  and  therefore  it  can  be  no  crime  or 
fault  in  you  to  adjudge  him  to  be  guilty  of  death." 

Thus  considered,  this  answer  is  an  argument  designed  to 


THE  JEWS  ATTEMPT  TO  REMOVE  PILATE'S  SCRUPLES.         377 

remove  the  scruples  of  Pilate,  inasmuch  as  they  alleged  the 
existence  of  a  law  which  would  justify  the  judgment  they 
demanded.  But  if  such  was  their  design,  the  argument  had 
not  the  eifect  they  desired  upon  the  mind  of  Pilate,  but  rather 
the  contrary.  This  they  did  not  foresee.  Yet  Pilate,  being  a 
heathen  and  unacquainted  with  their  laws,  could  not  judge  of 
them  for  himself,  and  he  could  not  allow  it  to  influence  his 
judgment  without  consenting  to  be  the  instrument  of  their 
passions.     But  what  was  this  law  to  which  they  referred? 

It  is  very  certain  they  had  no  law  which  appointed  cruci- 
fixion as  the  penalty  or  punishment  of  any  crime,  but  this  was 
the  kind  of  punishment  which  they  required.  This  they  knew 
full  well,  and  therefore  they  were  guarded  in  their  phraseology. 
For  observe,  they  did  not  say,  "  by  our  law  he  ought  to  be 
crucified,"  but  "he  ought  to  die,  because  he  made  himself  the 
Son  of  God." 

It  is  not  clear  what  idea  the  Jews  intended  to  impress  upon 
the  mind  of  Pilate,  by  this  accusation,  but  it  is  very  certain, 
from  the  discourses  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  enforced  as  they  were  by 
his  miracles,  that  they  understood  him  to  claim  Sonship  in  the 
proper  sense,  and  equality  with  the  Father.  This  is  proved  by 
John  V.  18.  "Therefore  the  Jews  sought  to  kill  him,  because 
he  not  only  had  broken  the  Sabbath,  but  said  also  that  God 
was  his  Father,  making  himself  equal  with  God."  In  this 
particular,  the  Jews  of  that  day  judged  much  more  accurately 
of  our  Lord's  words  than  the  Arians,  Socinians,  and  Unita- 
rians of  later  times.  Let  us,  however,  examine  the  grounds 
of  this  accusation.  We  can  suppose  but  two.  They  must 
have  believed  or  held  either  that  there  was  no  such  being  as  the 
Son  of  God  in  that  sense,  or  if  they  admitted  such  a  distinction 
of  persons  in  the  Divine  nature,  they  intended  to  assert  that 
the  Lord  Jesus  had  usurped  the  character  without  proving  his 
right  to  it. 

With  respect  to  the  first  of  these  suppositions,  their  own 
Scriptures  were  against  them,  although  it  is  quite  probable 
they  did  not  understand  them.  Paul  applies  the  words  in  the 
7th  verse  of  Psalm  ii.  "Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I 
begotten  thee,"  to  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  Acts 
xiii.  33,  and  the  same  expression  he  uses  in  Heb.  i.  6,  as 
evidence  of  his  pre-eminence  over  angels,  and  in  the  same 
connection  he  cites  Psalm  xlv.  6th  and  7th  verses.  "Thy 
throne,  0  God  is  for  ever  and  ever,  the  sceptre  of  thy  kingdom 
is  a  right  sceptre."  Heb.  i.  8.  And,  in  Rom.  i.  4,  he  speaks 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord  Jesus  as  a  declaration  of  his 
Sonship  attested  by  Divine  power.  Our  Lord  also  applies  to 
himself,  in  an  argument  with  the  Pharisees,  Psalm  ex.,  proving 
48 


378  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

that  the  Christ  is  the  Lord  of  David.  They  felt  the  force  of 
the  argument,  and  if  unwilling  to  admit  it,  were  unable  to 
answer  it.  Besides,  the  prophet  Isaiah  ix.  6,  applies  to  him, 
among  other  names,  these:  "Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the  Mighty 
God,  the  Everlasting  Father,  the  Prince  of  Peace."  Modern 
Jews  have  endeavoured  to  evade  this  passage  by  a  different 
translation — Wonderful,  Counsellor  of  the  Mighty  God,  of  the 
Everlasting  Father,  the  Prince  of  Peace.  But  we  may  ask 
with  Paul,  Who  hath  been  the  Counsellor  of  the  Mighty  God, 
but  the  eternal  Son  of  God?  Rom.  xi.  34.  See  Prov,  viii. 
22—30;  XXX.  4. 

These  passages,  and  many  others  that  may  be  cited,  prove 
that  the  foundations  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  were  firmly 
laid  in  the  Old  Testament,  although  the  Jews,  even  the  most 
learned  of  them,  may  not  have  clearly  understood  them ;  for 
Paul  says,  Acts  xiii.  27,  they  "  knew  not  the  voices  of  the 
prophets,  which  are  read  every  Sabbath  day."  Yet  their 
ignorance  of  their  own  Scriptures  was  no  ground  for  denying 
the  existence  of  such  a  being  as  the  Son  of  God,  nor  did  it 
dispense  them  from  the  obligation  to  receive  him,  and  believe 
in  him.  Even  the  ministry  of  the  Lord  Jesus  would  have  been 
without  effect,  had  he  not  declared  to  them  his  true  character, 
and  their  belief  in  him  and  reception  of  him  as  a  mere  man, 
would  have  been  imperfect,  and  even  vain.  This  accusation, 
then,  was  one  which  must  of  necessity  fall  upon  the  Messiah 
promised  by  God,  because  it  was  necessary  that  the  Messiah 
should  not  only  be  the  Son  of  God,  but  declare  himself  as 
such.  Even  Caiaphas  and  the  council  appeared  to  have 
believed  this;  as  we  may  infer  from  his  question,  "Art  thou 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Blessed?"  Mark  xiv.  61,  for  it  was 
upon  his  answer  to  this  question,  claiming  that  character,  that 
they  condemned  him.  Mark  xiv.  62,  64.  Let  us  come  now  to 
the  second  supposition,  viz.  that  he  usurped  this  adorable  char- 
acter, or  assumed  it  without  proof. 

We  may  admit  that  such  a  claim  could  never  be  established 
by  mere  assertion  or  argument,  or  by  any  merely  human  testi- 
mony or  proof.  Divine  though  he  was,  yet  his  Divinity  was 
hidden  under  a  merely  human  form,  without'  any  external 
evidences  which  human  perception  could  reach.  His  wisdom 
and  eloquence  were  wonderful,  but  these  might  have  been 
imparted  by  Divine  influence  to. one  of  merely  human  nature. 
Hence  it  was  our  Lord  constantly  appealed  to  his  works.  "Ye 
sent  unto  John,  and  he  bare  witness  unto  the  truth,  but  I 
receive  not  testimony  from  man.  John  v.  33.  But  I  have 
greater  witness  than  that  of  Johnj  for  the  works  that  my 
Father  hath  given  me  to  do — the  same  works  that  I  do,  bear 


PROOFS   OF  DIVINE   SONSHIP.  379 

"witness  of  me.  John  v.  36.  If  I  do  not  the  works  of  my 
Father,  believe  me  not."  John  x.  37.  See  also  John  x.  24,  25. 
And  after  the  close  of  his  public  ministry,  he  said :  "  If  I  had 
not  done  among  them  works  which  none  other  man  did,  they 
had  not  had  sin."  John  xv.  24.  These  texts  are  sufficient  on 
this  point. 

It  was  the  low  estimate  entertained,  even  by  the  most  learned 
among  the  Jews,  at  that  time,  which  led  them  to  expect  that 
the  Messiah  would  openly  claim  his  office,  without  respect  to 
miraculous  proof,  which  caused  our  Lord  to  say  to  them,  "I 
have  come,  in  my  Father  s  name,  and  ye  receive  me  not:  If 
another  shall  come,  in  his  07vn  name,  him  ye  Avill  receive." 
John  V.  43.  And  for  the  same  reason,  he  predicted  that  many 
would  come  after  him,  in  his  name,  saying,  I  am  Christ,  and 
should  deceive  many.  Matt.  xxiv.  5,  So  that  the  outward 
assumption  of  the  office  was  one  of  the  marks  of  a  false  Mes- 
siah— whereas  the  works  which  he  .performed,  having  been 
prophesied  of  and  ascribed  to  the  Christ,  were  the  only  incon- 
testable proof  of  the  true  Messiah.  Let  us  consider  now  for  a 
moment  the  works  he  performed :  Were  there  ever  greater  works 
performed,  or  more  in  number,  by  any  one  in  human  form? 
He  healed  the  sick,  cleansed  lepers,  cast  out  devils,  opened  the 
eyes  of  the  blind,  raised  the  dead,  gave  hearing  to  the  deaf, 
and  perfect  soundness  to  the  lame,  by  his  mere  word  and  will ; 
and  all  these  things  he  did  to  prove  that  he  was  sent  by  the 
Father;  that  he  was  the  Son  of  the  ever-blessed  God;  that  he 
was  one  with  him,  and  that  he  performed  the  same  works  as 
the  Father;  that  he  was  the  resurrection  and  the  life.  He 
declared  that  he  had  done,  or  that  he  was  about  to  do,  them, 
in  order  to  attest  these  important  truths.  We  may  say,  if  such 
proofs  were  insufficient,  it  is  impossible,  in  the  nature  of  things, 
that  the  fact  of  Divine  sonship  can  be  proved  to  men. 

It  is  true  that  our  Lord  performed  before  his  disciples  some 
miracles  Avhich  the  public  did  not  witness.  He  walked  on  the 
sea,  he  withered  a  fig-tree  by  his  word,  he  exerted  his  power 
over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  causing  one  of  them  to  bring  tribute- 
money  to  the  hook  of  Peter.  He  was  transfigured  before  three 
of  them,  and  called  Moses  and  Elias  into  his  presence.  He 
might  have  performed  all  these  miracles  before  the  priests  and 
rulers,  had  it  been  consistent  with  the  Divine  purpose  to  do  so. 
He  might  have  overawed  and  overpowered  them  by  assuming 
his  glory  before  them,  and  caused  the  people  to  tremble  as  they 
did  when  he  appeared  to  them  upon  Mount  Sinai.  But  such 
evidence  would  have  left  their  hearts  unchanged,  and  it  was 
not  the  Divine  purpose  that  he  should  throw  ofi"  the  covering 
of  his  humanity  to  prove  to  them  his  Deity. 


380  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 

We  conclude,  then,  that  this  second  supposition  is  entirely 
groundless,  and  therefore  this  new  accusation  was  an  evidence 
both  of  their  ignorance  and  their  wickedness.  We  will  now 
proceed  to  the  next  verse. 

John  xix.  8.  "  When  Pilate  therefore  heard  that  saying,  he 
was  the  more  afraid." 

This  new  accusation  struck  Pilate  with  great  force,  and  he 
was  unable  at  the  instant  to  discover  whether  it  was  a  mere 
calumny  or  had  some  foundation  in  fact.  He  must  have 
observed  something  very  mysterious  in  the  silence  of  the  Lord 
Jesus — in  his  superhuman  patience  and  mildness,  in  his  tran- 
quil dignity  under  the  greatest  outrages — and  it  was  impossible 
for  him  not  to  reflect,  "If  a  man,  what  a  man!"  His  answers 
were  equally  incomprehensible.  He  must  have  remembered 
that  he  claimed  to  be  a  king,  but  of  a  kingdom  difi"erent  from 
the  kingdoms  of  this  earth.  He  recollected,  also,  what  he  said 
of  the  object  of  his  birth  and  mission  into  this  world.  What 
could  these  words  mean?  Then,  again,  the  distressing  dream 
of  his  wife,  and  her  urgent  expostulation.  Perhaps,  also,  he 
had  previously  heard  of  his  preaching,  his  eminent  virtue,  his 
wonderful  works.  Such  considerations  would  naturally  bring 
him  to  a  pause,  and  lead  him  seriously  to  inquire  what  this 
new  character  or  office,  which  he  was  accused  of  usurping,  could 
be,  and  what  were  the  grounds  of  his  claim  to  it.  Such  reflec- 
tions, also,  would  naturally  excite  regret,  if  not  fear,  for  what 
he  had  done,  and  fear  to  proceed  further.  They  would  increase 
his  perplexities  and  his  desire  to  meddle  no  further  in  a  matter 
where  there  was  perhaps  something  supernatural  and  Divine. 
Perhaps,  also,  they  inspired  the  hope  that  he  might  find  by  the 
investigation  a  way  of  escape  from  the  danger  of  condemning  a 
man  not  merely  just,  but  of  Divine  origin.  But  the  place  where 
he  then  stood  was  unsuitable  for  such  an  investigation  and  calm 
reflection.     He  therefore, 

John  xix.  9.  "  Went  again  into  the  judgment  hall  [or 
rather  Prretorium],  and  saith  unto  Jesus,  Whence  art  thou?" 

The  design  of  this  question,  it  is  probable,  was  not  to  ascer- 
tain his  birthplace  or  family,  as  such  a  question  would  be 
understood  in  the  ordinary  intercourse  of  men;  but  rather  to 
draw  from  him  what  Pilate  supposed  to  be  his  secret  in  regard 
to  his  supernatural  origin,  not  known  to  the  public.  We  must 
bear  in  mind  that  Pilate  was  a  heathen,  and  that  his  religion 
taught  him  to.  believe  in  the  existence  of  gods  and  goddesses, 
who  had  given  birth  to  heroes,  and  although  he  may  have 
regarded  such  beings  as  fabulous,  as  many  enlightened  Romans 
did,  yet  what  he  had  heard  of  the  works  of  Jesus  may  have 
inclined  him  to  believe  that  such  beings  might  exist.     Or  he 


Pilate's  inquiry  as  to  Christ's  origin.  381 

may  have  had  more  elevated  thoughts  of  Jesus,  who  acknow- 
ledged but  one  God,  and  yet  claimed  to  be  the  Son  of  God. 
But  without  attempting  to  penetrate  the  motive  of  his  question, 
it  was  aptly  put;  for  in  order  to  know  the  true  character  of 
our  Lord,  it  Avas  necessary  to  know  his  origin.  The  Jcavs  knew 
him  not,  because  they  stopped  at  that  which  they  thought  they 
knew.  They  believed  that  the  Messiah  was  merely  a  son  of 
David.  They  knew  not  that  he  was  also  the  Lord  of  David. 
"We  know  this  man  whence  he  is,  but  when  Christ  cometh,  no 
one  knoweth  whence  he  is."  John  vii.  27.  There  was  more 
truth  in  this  language  than  those  who  uttered  it  were  aware  of. 
Nazareth,  and  the  human  relations  of  our  Lord,  and  his  educa- 
tion in  the  house  of  Joseph,  concealed  his  Divine  origin.  These 
were  the  veils  which  prevented  them  from  knowing  whence  he 
was.     But  to  the  question  of  Pilate, 

John  xix.  9.     "Jesus  gave  him  no  answer." 

The  silence  of  our  Lord  in  these  circumstances,  when  a  word 
might  have  confirmed  Pilate  in  the  high  idea  he  began  to  enter- 
tain, is  more,  astonishing,  when  judged  of  by  the  rules  of  human 
prude'nce,  than  his  silence  under  humiliation  and  sufferings. 
Pilate  thought  probably  that  he  was  doing  honour  to  the  Lord 
Jesus  to  propose  a  questioii  to  him,  which  implied  a  doubt 
whether  he  might  not  be  of  nobler  birth  than  most  other  men. 
He  thought  probably  that  self-interest,  or  a  desire  to  escape 
punishment  would  prompt  an  answer,  which  might  lead  not  only 
to  the  discovery  of  his  innocence,  about  which,  however,  Pilate 
did  not  doubt,  but  of  his  greatness — of  his  relations  with  some 
deity — of  his  motives  in  thus  coming  among  men  to  mingle  with 
them,  and  which  had  induced  him  to  suffer  so  much  without  a 
murmur  or  a  word — of  his  own  power  and  resources,  and  of  the 
chastisements  which  would  befall  those  who  should  dare  to  con- 
demn him  to  death.  But  more  than"  this,  Pilate  thought  that 
he  had  the  right  to  question  the  Lord  Jesus  about  everything 
that  regarded  his  condition  and  person,  and  to  have  an  answer. 
In  this,  we  need  not  say,  Pilate  erred  greatly.  It  is  not  to 
such  as  Pilate,  but  to  the  humble,  that  the  Lord  reveals  him- 
self. It  is  to  faith,  the  first  of  his  gifts,  that  he  grants  all 
others.     Pilate  could  not  comprehend  this  mystery. 

John  xix.  10.  "Then  saith  Pilate  unto  him,  Speakest  thou 
not  unto  me?" 

These  words  discover  clearly  the  secret  disposition  of  Pilate, 
and  confirm  the  suggestions  already  made.  His  words  may  be 
paraphrased  thus;  "Is  it  for  my  interest  that  I  inquire  whence 
you  are  ?  Is  it  my  condition  or  yours  that  is  now  in  question  ? 
Is  it  not  an  extraordinary  precaution  which  I  am  now  taking 
in  your  behalf,  to  find  out,  if  I  can,  whether  there  is  not  some- 


882  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

tiling  extraordinary  in  your  origin?  Plainly,  it  is  your  interest 
to  give  me  the  information  I  desire  upon  a  matter  so  important 
to  yourself.  Your  silence  is  out  of  place,  and  will  make  you 
responsible  for  any  mistake  I  may  fall  into.  My  duty  is  done 
when  I  have  endeavoured  to  inform  myself,  but  I  go  even 
beyond  that.  On  the  other  hand,  you,  by  your  silence,  make 
my  good  intentions  and  my  pains  useless."  With  such  re- 
flections Pilate  would  naturally  endeavour  to  justify  himself  in 
his  own  eyes,  and  condemn  the  silence  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  But 
there  is  another  view  of  the  matter.  Pilate  did  not  need 
light,  but  courage.  He  had  repeatedly  declared  the  innocence 
of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  he  needed  no  further  proof.  He 
had  ■  already  succumbed  to  the  enemies  of  the  Lord,  though 
he  knew  their  malice  and  hatred.  The  marks  of  cruelty  which 
the  Lord  bore  upon  his  person,  were  the  effects  of  Pilate's 
guilty  complaisance  to  the  priests  and  rulers.  There  is  no 
reason  to  believe  that  Pilate  would  have  been  more  just  or 
more  firm  had  the  Lord  Jesus  told  him  who  he  was  or  whence 
he  came.  He  had  no  means  of  rescue  but  the  exertion  of  the 
Divine  power  concealed  within  him,  but  it  was  not  the  will 
of  the  Father  that  he  should  exert  it;  for  "how  then  could 
the  Scriptures  be  fulfilled  that  thus  it  must  be?"  Matt, 
xxvi.  54. 

If  we  consider  the  object  of  Pilate's  inquiry  we  shall  see 
many  reasons  why  his  question  should  not  have  been  an- 
swered. Pilate  was  a  Gentile  and  an  idolater,  ignorant  of  the 
Jewish  Scriptures.  It  was  impossible  for  him  to  form  any 
proper  conception  of  the  nature  and  ofiice  of  the  Messiah. 
Had  the  Scriptures,  which  described  his  greatness  and  his 
humiliation,  his  deity  and  his  humanity,  been  read  to  Pilate, 
they  would  have  appeared  to  him  nothing  less  than  absolute 
contradictions.  Besides,  "it  did  not  belong  to  Pilate's  office, 
as  a  civil  magistrate,  to  decide  upon  such  questions,  and  it 
certainly  was  not  for  him  to  prescribe  to  the  Lord  of  heaven 
and  earth  the  time  and  the  manner  in  which  he  should  declare 
himself.  A  moment's  reflection  might  have  convinced  Pilate, 
that  if  Jesus  were  in  truth  the  Son  of  God,  as  his  question 
supposed  he  might  be,  it  was  not  his  office  to  inquire  into 
the  reasons  why  he  had  concealed  his  Divine  nature  from  the 
apprehension  of  men.  What  Pilate  added  was  more  ob- 
jectionable, 

John  xix.  10.  "  Knowest  thou  not  that  I  have  power  to 
crucify  thee  and  have  power  to  release  thee?" 

These  are  the  Avords  of  an  arbitrary  and  unjust  man.  He 
had  the  power  to  do  wrong,  but  no  right  to  do  wrong.  This 
language  was  designed  to  inspire  fear,  and  thereby  extort  the 


PILATE   UNWITTINGLY  CONDEMNS   HIMSELF.  383 

information  he  required.  But  it  took  from  him  all  excuse. 
By  his  own  confession,  he  had  as  much  power  to  deliver  Jesus 
from  the  cruel  malice  of  the  Jews  as  to  condemn  him.  Yet  he 
had  condemned  him,  while  declaring  him  innocent;  and  also 
subjected  him  to  a  cruel  scourging.  If  he  had  the  power  to 
do  justice,  vfhj  did  he  knowingly  do  injustice,  and  instead  of 
being  the  master  and  ruler  of  the  Jews,  become  their  slave  or 
their  tool  ?  But  it  is  much  more  easy  to  boast  of  one's  power 
and  authority  than  to  exercise  either  properly.  It  is  much 
easier  to  covet  high  places  than  to  fulfil  the  duties  of  them. 
The  pride  of  a  man  in  power  is  enough  to  make  him  for- 
midable to  his  fellows,  but  it  requires  great  virtue,  as  well  as 
intelligence,  to  use  power  only  for  good  ends.  It  is  true, 
Pilate  was  profoundly  ignorant  of  the  august  being  whom 
he  thus  addressed.  He  had  no  conception  that  he  himself 
would  one  day  stand  before  the  judgment  seat  of  that  man 
whom  he  thus  addressed.  But  if  it  had  been  the  humblest  of 
Pilate's  subjects  who  then  stood  before  him,  his  language  was 
unjustifiable  in  every  point  of  view.  Is  justice  nothing — is 
probity  nothing — duty  nothing?  Is  God's  providence  nothing, 
and  the  judgments  of  men — are  they  not  subject  to  revision? 
Can  one  man  be  the  god  of  another?  Is  it  chance  that  puts 
one  man  in  the  power  of  another  ?  Is  the  mere  caprice  of  the 
stronger  the  proper  rule  for  the  exercise  of  his  power?  If  not, 
then  Pilate  committed  the  most  grievous  errors  possible.  His 
words  evince  pride,  as  well  as  contempt  of  innocence  and 
virtue, 

John  xix.  11.  "Jesus  answered,  Thou  couldst  have  no 
power  at  all  against  me,  except  it  were  given  thee  from  above." 

It  is  remarkable  that  these  are  the  first  words  our  Lord 
uttered,  so  far  as  we  know,  after  his  former  private  interview 
with  Pilate,  within  the  Prnetorium,  when  he  avowed  his  kingly 
character,  John  xviii.  37  ;  although,  in  the  mean  time,  he  had 
been  sent  to  Herod,  and  sent  back  by  him  to  Pilate — re- 
examined by  Pilate,  in  the  presence  of  the  Jews,  and  scourged 
by  the  soldiers,  in  the  court  of  his  palace.  During  all  these 
scenes,  and  under  all  these  indignities,  he  opened  not  his  mouth, 
thus  fulfilling  Isaiah  )iii.  7. 

It  is  to  be  observed,  also,  that  what  he  said  on  this  occasion 
was  not  an  answer  to  Pilate's  question,  "Whence  art  thou?" 
That  question  he  had  answered  before,  when  he  said  he  was  a 
king.  John  xviii.  37.  What  he  said  on  this  occasion  was 
intended  to  instruct  Pilate  upon  the  point  of  his  own  authority, 
and  to  inform  him,  as  we  shall  see  presently,  of  the  relative 
guilt  of  those  concerned  in  this  transaction.  But  why  should 
he  speak  upon  this  subject,  while  he  remained  silent  upon  all 


884  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 

others  ?  We  suppose  the  reason  is,  that  Pilate's  remark 
trenched  upon  the  honour  of  the  Divine  government,  inasmuch 
as  he  claimed  a  power  independent  of  the  providential  govern- 
ment of  God. 

Pilate  derived  his  power  from  Tiberius  Cresar.  Tiberius 
had  been  chosen  by  Augustus  Cfesar  to  succeed  him  in  the 
imperial  office.  Augustus  Cresar  overturned  the  government 
of  his  country,  and  by  military  force,  had  made  himself  the 
master  of  the  Roman  people.  He  also  enlarged  his  dominions 
by  conquest.  Thus  Ave  trace  the  power  and  authority  of 
Pilate  back  to  a  usurpation.  How,  then,  could  Pilate's  power 
be  said  to  have  been  given  him  from  above,  that  is,  from 
heaven  ? 

The  answer  is,  that  it  came  to  him  in  the  order  of  God's 
providence,  and  so  was  a  derived  and  dependent  power,  and  not 
one  originating  in  human  force  or  will.  In  proof  of  this,  we 
may  refer  to  Rom.  xiii.  1,  2,  where  Paul  instructs  us  in  the 
true  nature  and  tenure  of  all  human  governments :  "  Let  every 
soul  be  subject  unto  the  higher  powers;  for  there  is  no  power 
but  of  God — the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  (or  ordered)  of 
God.  Whoever,  therefore,  .resisteth  the  power,  resisteth  the 
ordinance  of  God."  When  Paul  wrote  this  precept,  Nero,  one 
of  the  most  cruel  and  unjust  of  men,  swayed  the  empire.  It 
is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  precept  was  intended  for  all 
rulers  and  all  ages.  True,  God  does  not  directly  choose  tem- 
poral princes  as  he  chose  David,  but  his  providence  regulates 
and  controls  the  events  by  which  their  powers  and  authority 
are  established. 

Observe  now,  that  in  this  qualified  sense  our  Lord  admits  the 
power  of  Pilate  even  over  himself  as  a  man;  inasmuch  as  his 
words  imply  that  Pilate  is  established  in  lawful  authority  by 
God's  providence,  and  that  it  was  not  the  Divine  purpose  at 
that  time  to  prevent  any  abuse  of  the  power  which  had  thus 
providentially  been  placed  in  Pilate's  hands;  but  rather  to 
permit  an  abuse  of  it,  for  the  execution  of  the  purpose  of 
redemption.  If  such  was  our  Lord's  meaning,  we  have  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  Pilate  comprehended  it,  and  we  must 
therefore  receive  these  words  as  an  instruction  for  the  Church 
in  all  ages.  The  remaining  words  of  this  verse,  and  the  last 
which  our  Lord  ever  addressed  to  Pilate,  are  these: 

John  xix.  11.  "Therefore  he  that  delivered  me  unto  thee 
hath  the  greater  sin." 

These  words  are  a  deduction  or  conclusion  from  the  previous 
proposition.  The  fact  that  Pilate's  power  was  derived  from 
above,  (that  is,  as  we  have  explained,  it  came  to  him  in  the 
way  of  God's  providence,)  Avas  the  reason  why  Pilate's  sin  was 


INQUIRY  AS   TO   THE   AGENCY   OF   SATAN.  385 

less  than  the  sin  of  him  who  brought  the  Lord  to  Pilate's  bar. 
To  unfold  this  reasoning,  we  must  consider  carefully  both  the 
premises  and  the  conclusion.  And  first,  as  to  Pilate's  sin: 
This  did  not  consist  in  the  mere  fact  that  he  took  cognizance 
of  the  accusation  made  against  Jesus.  It  was  his  business — his 
official  duty  to  do  so,  and  power  had  been  given  him  from 
above  for  that  purpose.  His  sin  consisted  in  the  abuse  or 
sinful  exercise  of  his  legitimate  powers — in  his  cowardice,  his 
unjust  regard  to  infuriated  men,  in  his  vain  expedients  to  get 
rid  of  his  duties,  in  the  cruelties  he  had  perpetrated  under 
pretext  of  clemency,  in  his  unjust  judgment,  in  opposition  to 
the  know^n  and  declared  innocence  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  We 
may  trace  all  these  sins  to  one  source — the  fear  of  man.  Had 
Pilate's  courage  been  equal  to  his  judgment  and  conscience,  he 
would  have  soon  put  an  end  to  the  proceeding,  and  dispersed 
the  boisterous  crowd,  if  necessary,  by  the  military  force  at  his 
command,  or  if  that  force  was  unequal  to  the  emergency,  he 
would  rather  have  sacrificed  his  life  than  his  conscience.  But 
sins  springing  from  fear  are  less  heinous  in  the  sight  of  God 
than  those  which  flow  from  envy  and  hatred.  It  is  plain  that 
Pilate  wished  to  deliver  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  equally  plain  that 
the  chief  priests  and  rulers  wished  to  destroy  him.  They  were 
active  in  bringing  the  object  of  their  hate  to  the  bar  of  Pilate, 
and  malicious,  as  well  as  active,  in  making  false  accusations. 
It  was  Pilate's  duty  to  hear  them,  but  not  to  yield  when  he 
discovered  their  malice  and  falsehood.  They  pursued  their 
victim  hotly  and  with  the  malice  of  murderers :  Pilate,  through 
weakness  and  fear,  yielded  to  their  importunity  and  threats. 
This  is  one  view  of  the  matter.  There  is,  however,  a  point  of 
difficulty  not  yet  noticed.  Are  the  priests  chiefly  intended  by 
the  expression,  "He  that  delivered  me  to  thee,"  &;c.  We 
observe  the  pronoun  is  in  the  singular  number,  as  though  some 
one  person  was  intended.  "  Therefore  he  that  delivered  me," 
&c.  Let  us  attend  first  to  the  historical  facts.  Judas  betrayed 
the  Lord  Jesus  to  the  band,  the  captain,  and  the  officers  of  the 
Jews.  John  xviii.  1 — 3.  They  led  him  to  Annas,  verse  13; 
Annas  sent  him  to  Caiaphas,  verse  24;  Caiaphas  examined 
him  in  the  presence  of  the  officers,  verses  19 — 22.  As  soon 
as  it  was  day,  he  was  taken  to  the  council,  and  the  elders, 
chief  priests,  and  rulers  came  together,  Luke  xxii.  66;  and 
the  whole  multitude  took  him  to  Pilate.  Luke  xxiii.  1,  10,  13, 
14;  John  xviii.  28.  To  whom,  then,  does  the  word  he  refer? 
Some  commentators  say  that  the  singular  he  is  put  for  the 
plural,  and  includes  Judas,  the  high  priest,  and  the  whole 
Sanhedrim.  Diodati  says  it  refers  to  the  chief  priest  and  the 
Jews.  Adam  Clarke  thinks  Judas  and  the  Jews  are  meant; 
49 


386  NOTES   ON   SCKIPTUKE. 

Henry  says  either  the  Jews  or  Caiaphas  in  particular  was 
meant ;  Doddridge  says  the  Jewish  high  priest  and  the  council. 
No  doubt  all  these  were  guilty  actors,  and  even  more  guilty 
than  Pilate,  for  the  reasons  suggested.  But  is  it  not  as  true 
of  them  as  of  Pilate,  that  they  could  have  no  power  over  the 
Lord  at  all,  unless  it  had  been  given  them  or  permitted  to 
them  in  the  course  of  God's  providence?  Our  Lord's  remark 
to  Peter  at  the  time  of  his  arrest  is  pertinent  in  this  place:* 
"  Thinkest  thou  that  I  cannot  now  pray  to  my  Father,  and  he 
shall  presently  give  me  more  than  twelve  legions  of  angels?" 
Matt.  xxvi.  53.  And  this  also :  "  I  lay  down  my  life  that  I 
might  take  it  again.  No  one  taketh  it  from  me,  but  I  lay  it 
down  of  myself.  I  have  power  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  have 
power  to  take  it  again."  John  x.  17,  18.  These  passages 
prove  that  none  of  these  enemies  of  our  Lord  had  any  power 
over  him  at  all  but  such  as  he  himself  permitted  them  to  exer- 
cise. Does  not,  then,  the  reason  assigned  for  the  difference 
between  Pilate  and  these  others  fail,  if  the  view  taken  be  the 
correct  one  ?     Let  us  attempt  another  explanation. 

Turn  to  Gen.  iii.  15,  the  first  prediction  and  promise  to  fallen 
man — a  prediction  which  in  fact  preceded  the  utterance  of  the 
curse.  "And  the  Lord  God  said  to  the  serpent,  Because  thou 
hast  done  this  ....  I  will  put  enmity  between  thee  and  the 
woman,  and  between  thy  seed  and  her  seed ;  it  shall  bruise  (or 
rather,  crush  thee,  as  to)  thy  head,  and  thou  shalt  bruise  his 
heel."  But  in  the  meantime  Satan  (who  acted  by  the  serpent) 
acquired  a  dominion  in  this  world  of  such  a  nature,  that  he  is 
called  in  Scripture  the  god  of  this  world,  6  deo^  zou  alcovoi; 

*  Peter's  denial  of  his  Master,  Matt.  xxvi.  69 — 75;  Mark  xiv.  66 — 72; 
Luke  xxii.  54 — 62;  John  xviii.  25 — 27,  is  an  ever  memorable  example  of  his 
weakness ;  and  forms  a  strange  contrast  with  his  rash  assault  upon  an  under- 
ling of  the  high  priest  shortly  before.  Our  Lord's  reproof  of  Peter  on  both 
these  occasions  is  very  remarkable.  That /or  his  denial  is  a  touching  example 
of  his  tenderness,  Luke  xxii.  61;  John  xxi.  17;  while  that  for  his  assault 
contains  a  pointed  allusion  to  his  want  of  consideration.  This  disciple,  with 
only  two  others,  had  been  privileged  to  witness  the  scene  of  the  Transfigu- 
ration, and  the  glorious  apparition  of  Moses  and  Elias  in  answer  to  his  pi-ayer. 
Luke  ix.  29 — 31.  The  remembrance  of  this  scene  should  have  stayed  his  rash 
hand.  Yet  he  acted  as  if  it  were  needful  that  he  should  rescue  or  avenge  his 
Master.  None  could  understand  better  than  Peter  the  point  and  force  of  the 
reproof.  "Thinkest  thou,"  Peter,  thou  who  wast  privileged  to  witness  my 
glory  and  power,  when  Moses  and  Elias  appeared  in  answer  to  my  prayer — 
"thinkest  thou" — whatever  others  not  thus  privileged  may  think — "that  I 
cannot  now"  as  easily  as  I  did  then,  "pray  to  my  Father  and  he  will  imme- 
diately give  me  more  than  twelve  legions  of  angels"  for  my  rescue.  "But 
how,  then,  shall  the  Scriptures  concerning  my  decease  (exodus)  at  Jerusalem, 
of  which  Moses  and  Elias  spake,  'be  fulfilled?'"  &c.  The  emphatic  thou 
conveys  an  allusion  to  the  peculiar  privilege  of  Peter;  the  emphatic  «ow  to  the 
time  of  the  trausfiguratiou ;  and  the  whole  expression  to  the  iuconsideratenesa 
of  this  disciple. 


AGENCY  OF   SATAN.  387 

TODToo,  2  Cor.  iv.  4 — the  prince  of  the  power  of  the  air,  Eph. 
ii.  2 — the  prince  of  this  world,  John  xiv.  30;  xvi.  11 — the 
power  of  darkness.  Luke  xxii.  53.  See  also  Acts  xxvi.  18 ; 
1  John  iii.  8;  Rev.  xii.  7 — 10;  xx.  3.  The  power  or  dominion 
of  Satan  thus  acquired,  is  altogether  different  from  the  powers 
of  human  governments.  These  are  changed  and  overturned  in 
the  order  of  Providence,  but  the  power  which  Satan  acquired 
at  the  fall  of  man  could  be  broken,  consistently  with  the  Divine 
justice,  only  by  the  incarnation  and  atonement  of  the  Son  of 
God.  Hence  John  says,  1  John  iii.  8:  "For  this  purpose  the 
Son  of  God  was  manifested  [that  is,  in  the  flesh,]  that  he  might 
destroy  the  works  of  the  devil;"  and  Paul  teaches,  Heb.  ii.  14, 
that  the  Son  of  God  became  a  partaker  of  flesh  and  blood,  that 
through  (or  by  the  means  of  his)  death  he  might  destroy  him 
that  hath  the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the  devil,  who  acted  by 
the  serpent  spoken  of  in  Gen.  iii.  15.  See  Rev.  xx.  2.  These 
considerations  show  that  Satan  gained  a  power  which  in  some 
sense  was  independent,  inasmuch  as  it  could  not  be  defeated  or 
destroyed,  consistently  with  the  Divine  wisdom  and  purposed 
mercy  towards  man,  except  by  a  sacrifice  of  infinite  price. 

The  time  had  now  come  when  this  sacrifice  was  to  be  made. 
Let  us  suppose  the  curse  upon  the  serpent,  Gen.  iii.  15,  had  a 
reference  to  Satan — its  terms  imply  a  contest,  or  an  assault,  by 
him  upon  the  predicted  Seed.  He  had  no  power  to  crush  the 
head  of  the  woman's  ^ed,  that  is,  perpetually  to  retain  the 
dominion  he  had  usurped  by  the  fall  of  Adam,  but  he  had  the 
power,  in  the  figurative  language  of  the  prediction,  to  assault 
and  wound  the  heel  of  the  Seed ;  although  the  act  was  full  of 
peril  to  himself,  for  his  head  or  dominion,  while  engaged  in  that 
act,  would  be  crushed  and  for  ever  destroyed.  Although  this 
prediction  thus  referred  to  Satan,  yet  the  mystery  which  it 
concealed  was  hidden  from  him,  1  Cor.  ii.  7,  8,  and  when  the 
time  for  its  fulfilment  came,  the  deceiver  was  caught  in  his  own 
craftiness.  Job  v.  13;  1  Cor.  iii.  19.  It  is  evident,  also,  from 
the  temptation,  that  Satan  did  not  comprehend  the  mystery 
concealed  in  our  Lord's  person,  Matt.  iv.  3,  6 ;  Luke  iv.  3,  9 ; 
yet  until  our  Lord's  public  ministry  was  actually  ended,  he  felt 
and  acknowledged  his  power,  and  afterwards  until  he  was 
released  from  it  by  these  mysterious  words  addressed  to  Judas, 
after  he  had  actually  entered  into  him,  John  xiii.  27 :  "  That 
thou  doest  do  quickly." 

Thus  released  from  the  power  he.  had  hitherto  felt,  he  entered 
quickly  upon  his  work.  In  the  person  of  Judas,  he  went  to  the 
hall  of  Caiaphas,  prompted  the  words  of  Judas,  instigated  the 
chief  priests,  the  Pharisees,  the  oiEcers,  and  the  band  of  armed 
men ;  proceeded  with  them  to  the  garden ;  guided  their  operations- 


388  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

there,  and  at  the  house  of  Annas,  of  Caiaphas,  entered  with 
them  into  their  midnight  counsel;  prompted  all  the  acts  of 
spite,  indignity,  and  outrage  which  occurred  there,  and  at  the 
palace  of  Pilate.  He  was  the  chief  actor,  while  Judas,  the 
chief  priests,  and  the  Jews,  were  his  guilty  instruments.  All 
this  is  implied  in  the  transaction  which  was  then  to  be  per- 
formed. His  power  was  then  to  be  crushed,  but  in  the  way  of 
a  seeming  victory.  If  then  the  death  of  the  Lord  on  the  cross, 
by  means  of  Judas,  the  Jews,  and  Pilate,  was  foretold  by  the 
words,  Gen.  iii.  15,  "thou  shalt  bruise  his  heel,"  they  imply  at 
the  least,  that  Satan  should  be  the  chief  actor  in  that  conflict; 
and  the  same  thing  we  conceive  is  implied  in  the- words  addressed 
by  our  Lord  to  those  who  came  to  apprehend  him,  Luke  xxii.  53, 
"This  is  your  hour,  and"  (the  hour  of)  "the  power  of  darkness" 
is  the  hour  of  Satan's  power.  Our  Lord,  therefore,  in  the 
words  under  consideration,  regards  this  power  as  single  or  one, 
which  he  personifies  in  Satan.  As  if  he  had  said,  "Thou, 
Pilate,  couldest  have  no  power  over  me  at  all,  except  it  were 
given  thee  in  the  order  of  God's  providence,  for  the  purpose  of 
civil  government.  It  is  no  sin  in  you  to  exercise  this  poAver  for 
the  punishment  of  evildoers,  and  for  the  praise  of  them  that  do 
well,  1  Pet,  ii.  13,  14,  nor  even  to  take  cognizance  of  all  ques- 
tions which  are  brought  before  you.  But  he  that  delivered  me 
to  thee  does  not  act  by  a  delegated  power,  and  under  God,  but 
by  a  usurped  power  in  opposition  to  God,  which  it  is  God's  pur- 
pose to  destroy  in  the  only  way  possible,  consistently  with  the 
honour  of  his  government,  and  purposed  mercy  to  sinners  of 
mankind.  Your  sin,  and  even  the  sin  of  the  chief  priests  and 
Pharisees,  is  pardonable,  Luke  xxiii.  34,  through  the  blood 
which  you  are  now  about  to  shed.  But  the  sin  of  the  chief 
actor  is  unpardonable,  2  Pet.  ii.  4;  although  he  is  as  ignorant 
as  you  are  of  the  mystery  of  redemption,  and  of  the  far-reach- 
ing consequences  of  his  conduct  in  this  matter." 

We  are  justified,  we  submit,  in  taking  this  view  of  the  pas- 
sage. Our  Lord  did  not,  it  is  true,  name  Satan.  It  was  not 
necessary  to  do  so  to  Pilate.  He  was  incapable  of  understand- 
ing more  of  his  meaning  than  these  words  conveyed.  But  if  we 
exclude  the  agency  of  Satan  from  this  transaction,  where,  when, 
or  how,  we  may  ask,  did  the  predicted  conflict.  Gen.  iii.  15,  take 
place?  Let  the  reader  pause  to  answer.  Besides,  the  death 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  was  accomplished  at  that  time,  and  the  power 
of  death  is  expressly  ascribed  by.Paul  to  Satan.  Heb.  ii.  14. 
Some  have  supposed,  as  Baxter,  that  ordinary  sicknesses,  as 
well  as  death,  are  inflicted  by  Satan,  partly  upon  the  ground 
of  this  passage;  but  we  may,  perhaps,  give  the  apostle's  words 
a  more  restricted  meaning,  by  connecting  with  them  an  allusion 


PILATE   IS   MOVED   TO    RELEASE   JESUS.  389 

to  Gen.  iii.  15,  and  the  method  of  atonement  thereby  appointed. 
For  although  the  work  of  redemption  was  voluntarily  assumed 
by  the  Son  of  God,  Philip,  ii.  7,  yet  having  assumed  it,  there 
was  a  Divine  necessity  that  he  should  submit  himself  to  the 
power  of  Satan,  for  the  undergoing  of  these  sufferings  and  that 
death  which  were  the  appointed  means  of  the  redemption  of  the 
world,  and  the  destruction  of  Satan's  power  over  it. 

This  explanation  of  the  passage  may  seem  diffuse,  but  greater 
brevity  would  have  left  it  obscure.     Let  us  now  proceed. 

John  xix.  12.  "And  from  thenceforth  Pilate  sought  to 
release  Jesus." 

We  learn  by  these  words  the  impression  our  Lord's  answer 
made  upon  the  mind  of  Pilate.  Prisoner  though  he  was,  the 
Lord  replied  with  the  utmost  tranquillity  and  mildness  to  the 
implied  threat;  yet  he  charged  the  guilty  governor  with  sin, 
and  in  so  doing,  he  acted  really  as  his  judge.  Pilate's  con- 
science felt  the  truth  of  the  charge,  and  he  sought,  no  doubt, 
anxiously  to  relieve  himself,  by  releasing  his  prisoner.  Our 
Lord's  demeanour  could  not  be  otherwise  than  divinely  impres- 
sive. It  was  impossible  that  Pilate  should  not  perceive  some- 
thing mysterious  and  even  supernatural  in  the  patience  and 
silence  of  the  Lord  Jesus — something  beyond  his  power  to 
comprehend,  or  even  conjecture.  It  ought  to  have  determined 
him  unalterably  to  take  no  further  step  towards  his  con- 
demnation. 

Had  Pilate  acted  with  his  usual  resolution,  there  can  be 
little  doubt  that  he  would  have  released  the  Lord,  and  taken 
his  person  under  his  protection.  But  he  was  a  bad  man,  and, 
like  Judas,  was  given  over  to  the  invisible  power  of  Satan.  He 
said  the  truth,  when  he  affirmed  he  had  power  to  release.  He 
was  under  no  irresistible  constraint.  He  had  a  body  of  armed 
men  at  his  command.  The  fortresses  of  the  city  and  of  all 
Judea  were  under  his  control.  And  it  would  have  been  easy 
for  him  to  justify  his  act  to  the  Roman  Emperor,  by  a  simple 
narration  of  the  facts.  Yet  he  allowed  himself  to  be  overcome 
by  a  threat  from  those  whom,  on  other  occasions,  he  had  treated 
with  contempt. 

John  xix.  12.  "But  the  Jews  cried  out.  If  thou  let  this 
man  go,  thou  art  not  Coesar's  friend.  Whosoever  maketh  him- 
self a  king,  speaketh  against  Caesar." 

The  reader  perceives  here  that  the  Jews  abandoned  their  last 
accusation,  and  returned  to  the  first,  which  Pilate  had  so  often 
discarded,  and  even  the  Jews  had  abandoned.  These  incon- 
sistencies prove  their  malice.  But  who  would  have  thought  a 
Roman  governor  needed  the  exhortations  of  Jewish  priests  to  be 
faithful  to  the  Emperor !     Their  zeal  was  certainly  misplaced. 


390  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

It  was  neither  sincere  nor  pure.  It  is  an  example  of  religious 
bigotry,  always  malicious,  invoking  the  aid  of  the  secular  power 
in  furtherance  of  falsehood,  when  all  other  means  failed. 
Besides,  their  charge  was  of  a  nature  to  fall  directly  upon  the 
true  Messiah,  whoever  he  might  be — even  on  the  Messiah  they 
expected.  It  was  made  also  in  opposition  to  the  known  fact, 
that  the  Lord  Jesus  expressly  disclaimed  interference  with  the 
temporal  power,  and  had  virtually  enjoined  on  them  the  duty 
of  paying  tribute  to  Cresar. 

John  xix.  13.  "When  Pilate  therefore  heard  that  saying, 
he  brought  Jesus  forth,  and  sat  down  in  the  judgment  seat  in 
the  place  that  is  called  [in  Greek]  the  pavement,  but  in  the 
Hebrew  gahbatha,  and  it  was  the  preparation  of  the  Passover, 
and  about  the  sixth  hour,  and  he  saith  unto  the  Jews,  Behold 
your  king." 

It  appears  by  the  connection,  that  Pilate  had  left  Jesus  in 
the  Prietorium  at  the  close  of  the  last  private  interview,  and 
went  out  to  the  pavement  to  expostulate  with  the  Jews  upon 
their  cruel  and  unjust  demand.  What  Pilate  said  to  them  John 
does  not  record,  but  only  the  answer  of  the  Jews  to  Pilate's 
expostulation:  "If  thou  let  this  man  go,  thou  art  not  Caesar's 
friend,"  &c.  Upon  hearing  these  words,  Pilate  retired  into 
the  Prfetorium,  where  he  had  left  the  Lord,  and  brought  him 
forth,  and  sat  on  his  judgment  seat.  It  is  not  improbable  that 
the  Lord  stood  near  him,  as  conspicuously  in  view  as  Pilate. 
We  have  already  remarked  upon  the  august  function  Pilate 
performed,  when  he  brought  him  forth  from  the  court  of  his 
palace,  wearing  the  crown  of  thorns  and  the  purple  robe; 
although  Pilate  was  not  on  either  occasion  aware  of  the  nature 
of  the  act  he  was  performing.  But  hitherto  this  presentation 
of  the  Messiah  to  his  people  by  Pilate,  was  in  a  manner  indis- 
tinct. It  was  the  purpose  of  Divine  Providence  that  it  should 
be  now  repeated  as  a  distinct  act,  unconnected  with  anything 
else.  This  last  scene  in  the  transaction  seems  designed  for  that 
purpose.  Pilate  does  not  appear  to  have  intended  derision  or 
mockery  of  the  Jews  on  this  occasion ;  but  if  such  had  been  his 
motive,  the  act  was  providentially  ordered  for  a  very  different 
end.  Let  us  lay  Pilate  out  of  view,  then,  for  a  moment,  and 
consider  his  act  and  his  words,  with  the  response  of  the  Jews. 
Try  to  imagine  this  scene.  There  stood  the  true  Messiah  in 
full  view  of  a  vast  multitude,  gathered  from  all  parts  of  the 
country,  including  their  priests  and  their  rulers.  Pilate  says 
in  their  hearing,  suiting,  perhaps,  his  action  to  his  words,  "Be- 
hold your  king."  They  instantly  cry  out  with  violence  and 
passion,  "Away  with  him,  crucify  him!"  Thus,  when  formally 
presented,  they  again  reject  him,  and  demand  his  death.     To 


THE  jews'   formal   REJECTION   OF   THE   MESSIAH.        391 

remove  all  ambiguity,  Pilate  was  prompted  to  put  to  them  this 
one  (|uestion — "Shall  I  crucify  your  king?"  The  chief  priests 
answered  in  the  name  and  on  behalf  of  the  nation,  "  We  have 
no  king  but  Caesar."  What  Pilate  said  when  he  thus,  for  the 
last  time,  presented  Jesus  to  them,  was  true.  He  ivas  their  king. 
In  this  act  Pilate  was  the  instrument  of  Divine  Providence,  and 
his  words,  heathen  as  he  was,  were  dictated  to  him.  Pilate 
spoke  them  not  of  himself.  They  were  the  words  of  God,  as 
the  words  of  Caiaphas  were,  when  he  prophesied  that  Jesus 
should  die  for  that  nation.  John  xi.  49 — 52.  The  rejection  of 
him  by  the  people  and  their  rulers  was  formal  and  explicit. 
The  place,  the  day,  the  hour,  as  well  as  the  declaration  of 
Pilate,  and  the  answer  of  the  Jews,  rendered  it  the  most  solemn, 
most  awful  transaction  this  world  has  ever  witnessed,  except 
the  scene  of  the  cross  which  soon  followed. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  determine  the  idea  which  Pilate  had 
of  Jesus,  when  he  inquired,  "Shall  I  crucify  your  king?"  We 
have  no  reason  to  suppose  he  was  instructed  in  the  Jewish 
Scriptures,  although  there  is  reason  to  suppose  he  began  to 
entertain  a  higher  idea  of  the  character  of  Jesus  than  ever 
before.  But  the  answer  of  the  chief  priests,  considered  without 
reference  to  the  thoughts  of  Pilate,  was  a  plain  rejection  of  the 
Messiah  promised  them  in  the  Scriptures,  and  a  formal,  solemn 
renunciation  of  the  national  expectation  and  hope.  "We  have 
no  king  but  Csesar."  They  do  not  say  to  Pilate,  "He  is  not 
our  king  whom  you  propose  to  us  as  such ;  he  is  an  impostor — 
a  deceiver.  The  Messiah  and  king  whom  we  expect  will  bear 
a  different  character,  and  furnish  us  with  other  proofs  of  his 
title."  On  the  contrary,  they  renounce  all  the  promises  made 
to  Abraham  and  David;  they  cut  themselves  off  from  the  house 
of  David  as  effectually  as  the  ten  tribes  did,  when  they  said, 
"What  portion  have  we  in  David?  neitlier  have  we  inheritance 
in  the  Son  of  Jesse.  To  your  tents,  0  Israel."  1  Kings  xii.  16. 
Judging  them  by  these  words,  they  regarded  as  a  vain  thing 
the  great  and  glorious  hope  of  Israel,  and  renounced  all  that 
was  essential  in  their  religion,  when  they  proclaimed  that  a 
foreign,  heathen  prince — an  enemy  of  their  religion,  was  their 
only  king.  They  gave  Pilate  to  understand  that  they  neither 
desired  nor  hoped  for  any  other.  But  was  it  in  Ci^sar,  we 
may  ask,  they  expected  the  fulfilment  of  those  Divine  promises 

made  to  David?     "I  will  set  up  thy  seed  after  thee I 

will  establish  his  kingdom I  will  establish  the  throne 

of  his  kingdom  for  ever."  2  Sam.  vii.  12 — 16.  "In  his  days 
shall  the  righteous  flourish,  and  abundance  of  peace  so  long  as 
the  moon  cndureth."  Ps.  Ixxii.  7.  Was  it  to  Ciesar  that  God 
had  promised  with  an  oath,  "  The  Lord  hath  sworn  and  will 


392  NOTES  ON  scripture; 

not  repent;  thou  art  a  priest  for  ever  after  the  order  of  Mel- 
chizedec?"  Ps,  ex.  4.  Was  it  of  Caesar  that  God  by  the 
mouth  of  David  had  said,  "His  name  shall  endure  for  ever; 
his  name  shall  be  continued  as  long  as  the  sun,  and  men  shall 
be  blessed  in  him.  All  nations  shall  call  him  blessed?"  Ps. 
Ixxii.  17.  How,  then,  could  they  say,  "We  have  no  king" — 
"we  desire  no  king — we  hope  for  no  king  "but  Caesar?" 

God  took  the  nation  at  their  word,  in  answer  to  Pilate.  He 
abandoned  the  nation  to  Caesar,  according  to  their  choice.  Never 
since  have  they  had  a  king  of  the  house  of  David,  or  of  their 
nation.  They  have  no  priesthood,  nor  sacrifice,  nor  common- 
wealth, nor  liberty.  From  that  time  to  this,  they  have  been 
subject  to  foreign  powers,  and  the  land  of  the  Covenant  has 
been  trodden  down  by  the  Gentiles ;  thus  fulfilling  the  words  of 
their  own  prophet,  Hosea  iii.  4 :  "  The  children  of  Israel  shall 
abide  many  days  without  a  king,  and  without  a  prince,  and 
without  a  sacrifice,  and  without  an  image,  and  without  an  ephod, 
and  without  teraphim."  See  Luke  xxi.  24;  Matt,  xxiii.  37,  38. 

These  dreadful  judgments  and  long-continued  desolations  they 
invoked  upon  themselves.  Yet  for  all  this,  their  rejected  Mes- 
siah will  yet  have  mercy  upon  them  for  their  fathers'  sake. 
Rom.  xi.  28.  For  the  same  prophet  adds,  Hos.  iii.  5:  "After- 
ward shall  the  children  of  Israel  return  and  seek  the  Lord  their 
God  and  David  their  king,  and  shall  fear  the  Lord  and  his  good- 
ness in  the  latter  days."     See  Matt,  xxiii.  39. 

We  may  dwell  here  a  moment  on  some  of  our  Lord's  allu- 
sions, during  his  public  ministry,  to  this  final  and  formal  rejec- 
tion of  himself  by  the  nation.  "  Oh  that  thou  hadst  known, 
even  thou,  at  least  in  this  thy  day,  the  things  that  belong  to 
thy  peace ;  but  now  they  are  hid  from  thine  e^^es ;  for  the  days 
shall  come  upon  thee,  that  thine  enemies  shall  cast  a  trench 
about  thee,  and  compass  thee  round,  and  keep  thee  in  on  every 
side,  and  lay  thee  even  with  the  ground,  and  thy  children  within 
thee,  and  they  shall  not  leave  in  thee  one  stone  upon  another; 
because  thou  knewest  not  the  time  of  thy  visitation."  Luke 
xix.  41—44.    See  Matt.  xxii.  7 ;  xxi.  41 — 43;  Luke  xix.  14,  27. 

These  predictions  of  our  Lord  were  executed  by  the  Romans 
and  that  Caesar,  or  that  Gentile  power,  which  they  preferred  to 
Jesus.  They  were  oppressed  by  Caligula,  the  successor  of 
Tiberius.  Nero  punished  them  for  that  revolt  into  which  they 
had  been  goaded,  by  the  entire  desolation  of  Galilee.  They 
suffered  almost  incredible  evils  in-  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  which 
was  taken  the  first  year  of  Vespasian.  One  instance  may  be 
mentioned.  A  large  number  of  Jews,  oppressed  by  famine, 
and  not  being  able  to  endure  the  tyranny  of  a  party  of  their 
own  people,  endeavoured  to  escape  from  Jerusalem,  and  make 


CHRIST   DELIVERED   TO   BE   CRUCIFIED.  393 

their  way  through  the  besieging  army  by  artifice  or  by  force. 
But  they  all  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Roman  soldiers,  who, 
after  cruel  flagellations  and  all  sorts  of  tortures  and  indignities, 
crucified  them  upon  the  ramparts  opposite  to  the  wall.  They 
crucified  five  hundred  and  even  more  daily,  until  there  was  no 
more  space  to  plant  crosses,  and  no  more  crosses  upon  which  to 
hang  victims.  Josephus,  lib.  i.  cap.  12.  Thus  God  delivered 
this  people  into  the  hands  of  their  enemies,  who  executed  the 
Divine  judgments,  and  from  that  time  the  Theocracy  has  alto- 
gether been  withdrawn  from  Israel. 

Our  Lord  foretold  these  dreadful  judgments  in  the  parable 
of  the  marriage,  recorded  in  Matt.  xxii.  7  ;  and  from  that  day 
to  this,  the  Jews  have  been  living  witnesses  of  the  Divine  mis- 
sion of  the  Lord  Jesus, 

John  xix.  16.  "  Then  delivered  he  him  therefore  unto  them 
to  be  crucified,  and  they  took  Jesus,  and  led  him  away;"  or,  as 
Luke  expresses  it,  xxiii.  24,  "  he  gave  sentence  that  it  should 
be  as  they  required." 

Thus  ended  the  proceeding  before  Pilate,  and  thus  was  ful- 
filled the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  liii.  8:  "He  was  taken  from 
prison  and  from  judgment,  and  who  shall  declare  his  genera- 
tion ?  for  he  was  cut  ofi"  out  of  the  land  of  the  living ;  for  the 
transgression  of  my  people  was  he  smitten;"  or,  as  a  learned 
Jewish  translator  renders  the  clause — "Through  oppression 
and  through  judicial  punishment,  was  he  taken  away ;  but  his 
generation — who  could  tell?" 

We  are  not  to  understand  by  these  words  that  the  Jews  took 
our  blessed  Lord  to  Calvary,  and  with  their  own  hands  nailed 
him  to  the  cross.  The  centurion  and  the  soldiers  executed  the 
sentence  of  Pilate,  as  we  learn  from  the  succeeding  narrative. 
Besides,  we  know  from  other  sources,  that  among  the  Romans, 
soldiers  took  the  lives  of  those  whom  the  magistrates  had  con- 
demned to  death.  Thus  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  concurred  in 
the  accomplishment  of  the  mystery  of  redemption.  The  Jews 
demanded  the  death  of  their  King  and  Saviour  at  the  tribunal 
of  Pilate,  and  he  gave  sentence  that  it  should  be  as  they 
required.  Gentiles  then  nailed  him  to  the  cross.  Both  were 
inexcusable  while  accomplishing  that  act,  through  which  alone 
can  either  Jew  or  Gentile  hope  for  salvation. 

Pilate  retained  his  office  some  two  or  three  years  after  these 
events.  According  to  Josephus,  the  Jewish  historian,  he  was 
guilty  of  great  oppression  and  of  other  misconduct,  for  which  he 
was  deposed  from  his  office  in  the  last  year  of  the  reign  of  Tibe- 
rius Caesar,  a.d.  86 — 7.  Eusebius  informs  us  that  he  was  exiled 
to  Vienna,  a  town  in  Gaul,  situated  on  the  Rhone.  Ilerod  Anti- 
pas  suffered  a  similar  end.  According  to  Josephus,  he  was 
50 


394  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

banished  to  Lyons,  which  was  a  few  miles  north  of  Vienna. 
See  JosepJms  Antiq.,  xviii.  5;    Tacitus,  Atinals,  xv.  44. 

Matt,  xxvii.  3 — 5.  "  Then  Judas  which  had  betrayed  him, 
when  he  saw  that  he  was  condemned,  repented  himself,  [fitra- 
Ushjdtc^)  and  brought  again  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver  to  the 
chief  priests  and  elders,  saying,  I  have  sinned  in  that  I  have 
betrayed  innocent  blood.  And  they  said,  What  is  that  to  us? 
See  thou  to  that.  And  he  cast  down  the  pieces  of  silver  in  the 
temple,  and  departed,  and  went  and  hanged  himself." 

This  incident  is  brought  in  by  some  harmonists  at  this  junc- 
ture of  the  proceeding,  though  it  may  be  questioned  whether 
we  should  not  assign  to  it  an  earlier  place.  However  that  may 
be,  it  shows  us  that  while  Judas  was  touched  with  remorse,  and 
would  gladly  have  undone  his  deed,  the  priests  and  elders  were 
inexorably  resolved  to  accomplish  their  purpose.  Deep  must 
have  been  the  anguish  of  the  traitor  to  vent  itself  in  such  acts ! 
Yet  the  Evangelist  employs  a  word  to  denote  it  which  does  not 
allow  us  to  suppose  that  his  repentance  was  genuine.  Some 
authors  understand  the  word,  [aTtrj^aTo)  translated  "hanged 
himself,"  as  signifying  merely  that  "he  was  suffocated  or 
strangled,"  and  the  learned  Lightfoot  takes  it  in  that  sense. 
He  supposes  that  Satan,  having  taken  corporeal  possession  of 
Judas,  was  permitted  to  destroy  his  life  by  a  direct  act  of  power 
in  an  extraordinary  way,  and  that  he  did  so  at  the  moment  of 
quitting  possession  of  his  person.  Certain  it  is,  there  was 
something  in  the  manner  of  his  death  so  remarkable  as  to  be 
generally  spoken  of  as  such  by  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem, 
Acts  i.  18,  19,  which  serves  to  distinguish  it  from  a  common 
case  of  suicide.  So  Lightfoot  argues,  see  his  Harmony^  and 
his  Worhs,  vol.  ii.  pp.  384  and  690. 

Matt,  xxvii.  6,  7.  "And  the  chief  priests  took  the  silver 
pieces,  and  said,  It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to  put  them  into  the 
treasury,  because  it  is  the  price  o£  blood.  And  they  took 
counsel,  and  bought  with  them  the  potter's  field,  to  bury 
strangers  in." 

If  Judas  approached  the  priests  during  the  proceeding  before 
Pilate,  it  is  not  probable  his  interview  with  them  was  more 
than  momentary.  Nor  is  it  probable  they  consulted  together, 
as  we  are  informed  they  did  in  these  verses,  before  the  awful 
tragedy  was  finished.  Judas,  finding  they  were  remorseless, 
cast  the  money  down  in  the  temple  as  a  detestable  thing,  and 
immediately  departed.  The  resolution  of  the  priests  con- 
cerning this  money  shows  the  irregular  workings  of  conscience 
in  depraved  men.  The  law  they  would  not  violate.  Yet  they 
would  take  the  money,  and  even  dispose  of  it.  But  because 
they  had  once  paid  it  away  to  a  traitor  as  the  price  of  blood,  it 


THE   potter's   FIELD.  395 

could  not  be  put  back  into  the  Corban,  or  sacred  treasury, 
from  whence,  without  scruple,  they  had  taken  it  to  buy  that 
blood.  See  Deut.  xxiii.  18.  Still  something  should  be  done 
with  it  for  a  charitable  end.  They  resolve,  therefore,  to  buy 
the  potter's  field  for  the  burial  of  strangers — probably  Gentiles, 
though  some  suppose  it  was  intended  for  the  burial  of  persons 
who  came  to  Jerusalem  for  religious  purposes  and  died  there. 
The  potter's  field  is  here  spoken  of  as  a  place  well  known. 
The  use  which  had  been  made  of  it  would  naturally  give  it 
notoriety  with  the  people  generally.  Probably  it  had  been 
exhausted  of  its  clay,  and  abandoned  as  no  longer  of  any  value, 
otherwise  it  is  not  probable  it  could  have  been  purchased  for  so 
small  a  price.  Could  they  have  looked  only  a  few  years  into 
futurity,  they  would  have  seen  how  useless  this  provision  would 
be,  either  for  themselves  or  strangers. 

Matt,  xxvii.  8.  "Wherefore  that  field  was  called  [has  been 
called]  the  field  of  blood  until  this  day." 

From  Acts  i.  19,  we  learn  that  the  field  was  called  in  the 
dialect  of  Jerusalem  Acel-dama,  or  Hakal  (field,)  dama  (blood.) 
It  was  situated  near  the  southern  quarter  of  Mount  Sion, 
according  to  Jerome,  and  was  so  called,  not  only  because  it  was 
the  price  of  blood,  but  was  the  place  where  Judas  himself 
perished.  See  Acts  i.  18,  19,  and  Lightfoot  on  that  ^passage. 
It  is  remarkable  that  the  name  of  the  field  should  be  changed 
for  the  reason  here  mentioned.  It  is  not  easy  to  bring  the 
common  people  to  change  the  name  of  a  public  and  well  known 
place.  Why  not  call  it  still  "The  potter's  field?"  or  if  the 
name  must  be  changed,  why  not  denominate  it  from  the  new 
use  to  which  it  was  to  be  put — "The  field  to  bury  strangers 
in,"  or,  as  we  should  say,  "The  strangers'  burial-ground?" 
The  change  certainly  could  not  have  been  made  by  the 
disciples  of  the  Lord,  nor  was  it  made  to  honour  him.  Ac- 
cording to  Luke,  Acts  i.  19,  the  name  served  rather  to  per- 
petuate the  crime  of  Judas,  and  according  to  Matthew,  the 
crime  of  the  priests  also. 

Matt,  xxvii.  9,  10.  "Then  was  fulfilled  that  which  was 
spoken  by  Jeremy  the  prophet,  saying,  And  they  took  the 
thirty  pieces  of  silver,  the  price  of  him  that  was  valued,  whom 
they  of  the  children  of  Israel  did  value,  and  gave  them  for  the 
potter's  field,  as  the  Lord  appointed  me." 

The  passage  here  cited  is  found  in  Zechariah  xi.  13,  and  not 
in  Jeremiah.  Some  have  accounted  for  the  discrepancy  by 
saying  that  the  later  prophets  were  accustomed  to  repeat  the 
predictions  and  the  language  of  their  predecessors.  Compare 
Jer.  xxxi.  29,  30,  with  Ezek.  xviii.  2,  3,  4.  Zechariah 
especially  was  accustomed  to  use  the  words  of  Jeremiah — so 


396  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 

much  so,  that  the  Jews  had  the  saying,  that  the  spirit  of 
Jeremiah  was  in  Zechariah.  On  this  ground,  some  have 
supposed  that  the  prophecy  here  quoted  was  first  uttered  by 
Jeremiah,  and  afterwards  repeated  by  Zechariah.  See  Grotius. 
Others  account  for  the  discrepancy  in  this  way :  They  say  that 
the  name  of  Jeremiah  stood  first  in  the  book  of  the  prophets, 
and  that  it  was  the  intention  of  the  Evangelist  to  quote  from 
the  volume  under  his  name,  not  to  cite  the  particular  author  of 
this  prophecy.  In  the  same  manner  it  is  supposed  our  Lord 
(Luke  xxiv.  44)  intended  to  include  under  the  title  of  "  the 
Psalms"  the  whole  of  the  Jewish  Hagiography,  because  the 
Psalms  stood  first  in  that  division  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures. 
See  Less.  pp.  352,  353.  This  is  Lightfoot's  explanation  (see 
his  Harmony.)  Passing  this  matter,  which  is  of  minor  mo- 
ment, as  the  authenticity  and  inspiration  of  the  passage  cannot 
reasonably  be  doubted,  we  add  a  word  or  two  on  the  quotation 
itself. 

If  we  turn  to  the  prophet  Zechariah,  xi.  13,  we  find  that 
God,  under  the  parable,  or  rather  in  the  character,  of  a  shep- 
herd, demands  of  the  Jews  his  price  or  reward  for  the  blessings 
he  had  conferred  on  them,  in  guiding  and  instructing  them. 
They  give  him  the  niggardly  sum  of  thirty  pieces  of  silver — 
the  price  of  a  slave  who  had  been  pushed  or  gored  by  an  ox. 
Exod.  xxi.  32.  Disdaining  the  gift,  God  commands  the 
prophet  to  cast  the  money  to  the  potter.  The  prophet  obeyed 
by  casting  it  into  the  temple  for  the  potter.  Thus,  what  was 
typically  done  by  the  prophet  was  actually  carried  out  in  the 
person  of  the  Great  Shepherd.  1  Pet.  v.  4.  The  priests 
actually  paid  to  Judas  for  the  person  of  the  Lord  Jesus  the 
thirty  pieces  of  silver,  which  he  brought  back  to  them,  and 
when  they  would  not  receive  the  pieces,  he  cast  them  down  in 
the  temple  as  the  prophet  did.  These  same  pieces  the  priests 
paid  away  again  to  the  potter  for  his  field. 

This  passage.  Matt,  xxvii.  3 — 10,  is  evidently  a  digression 
from  the  general  course  of  the  narrative.  If  we  read  verses 
1  and  2  in  immediate  connection  with  the  11th  and  the  follow- 
ing verses,  we  perceive  no  break  in  the  sense.  By  introducing 
this  passage  in  the  history  of  Judas  at  this  place,  the  Evange- 
list gives  us  reason  to  suppose  that  it  followed  immediately 
upon  our  Lord's  condemnation  by  the  Sanhedrim,  and  before 
the  proceeding  before  the  Roman  governor  was  commenced, 
and  such  we- suppose  the  correct' view,  although  Cradock,  New- 
come,  and  Dr.  Robinson  introduce  it  immediately  after  the 
condemnation  of  Jesus  by  Pilate.  John  xix.  16.  We  now 
return  to  the  narrative. 

John  xix.  16.     "And  they  took  Jesus,  and  led  him  away." 


CHRIST   BEARINO   THE    CROSS.  397 

The  act  of  Pilate  last  mentioned,  was  the  presentation  of 
Jesus  to  the  Jews  as  their  king,  and  their  rejection  of  him  in 
that  character.  It  took  place,  it  will  be  remembered,  at  the 
judgment  seat  in  front  of  the  Prtetorium.  From  that  place 
they — the  soldiers — led  him  away  to  the  place  of  crucifixion. 

Matt,  xxvii.  31;  Mark  xv.  30.  "And  after  they  had 
mocked  him,  they  took  off  the  purple  robe  and  put  his  own 
clothes  on  him,  and  led  him  out  to  crucify  him." 

The  mockery  here  spoken  of  was  that  barbarous  sport  which 
the  soldiers  made  of  the  Lord  of  glory,  delivered  into  their 
hands  by  Pilate  to  be  put  to  death.  At  the  conclusion  of  it 
they  took  off  the  royal  robe,  but  not  the  crown  of  thorns,  at 
least  it  is  not  said  they  did,  and  put  upon  him  his  own  clothes. 
Thus  we  see  the  final  scene  of  his  suifering  was  delayed  a  little, 
in  order  to  allow  opportunity  to  heap  on  him  new  insults  and 
indignities.  Such  conduct  in  the  case  of  the  vilest  and  most 
odious  malefactor  would  not  be  tolerated  among  a  people 
enlightened  by  the  doctrine,  and  imbued,  in  ever  so  slight  a 
degree,  with  the  spirit  of  this  Jesus  who  so  meekly  bore  it. 

It  was  the  custom  of  the  Jews  to  conduct  outside  of  the  camp 
or  of  the  city  those  who  were  condemned  to  death,  as  we  learn 
from  Numb.  xv.  35;  1  Kings  xxi.  13.  The  Romans  had  the 
same  custom,  Hirtius  de  Bello  Africaiio,  Seneca,  Vegetius, 
Plautus,  Mil.  Grlo.  act  ii.  sc.  4 ;  Sueton.  in  Claudio,  cap.  xxi. ; 
and  it  was  observed  in  the  case  of  the  Saviour.  But  there  was 
much  more  meaning  in  their  leading  the  Saviour  out  of  the  city 
than  a  mere  conformity  to  Roman  or  Jewish  customs.  Our 
Lord  had  predicted  this  in  his  prophetical  allegory  of  the  house- 
holder. Matt.  xxi.  39;  and  the  apostle  Paul  finds  in  it  the 
fulfilment  of  the  typical  import  of  Levit.  xiv.  11,  12;  vi.  30; 
compared  with  xvi.  27.  "For  the  bodies  of  those  beasts  whose 
blood  is  brought  into  the  sanctuary  by  the  high  priest,  are 
burned*  without  the  camp.  Wherefore,  Jesus,  that  he  might 
sanctify  the  people  with  his  own  blood,  suff"ered  without  the 
gate."     Heb.  xiii.  11,  12. 

The  body  of  our  Lord,  considered  as  an  offering  for  sin, 
therefore  must  needs  be  taken  without  the  city,  while  his  blood 
was  offered,  not  within  the  temple  by  the  Jewish  high  priest, 
but  was  presented  by  himself,  the  true  High  Priest,  within  the 
holy  place  of  the  upper  sanctuary,  having  obtained  thereby  for 
his  people  eternal  redemption.     Heb.  ix.  11,  12;  x.  12. 

John  xix.  17.  "And  he,  bearing  his  cross,  went  forth  into 
a  place  called  'The  place  of  a  skull,'  which  is  called  in  the 
Hebrew,  Golgotha." 

We  are  told  that  it  was  the  usage  of  the  Romans  to  compel 
those  who  were  to  be  crucified  to  bear  their  own  crosses.     And 


898  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

there  are  some  evidences  of  such  a  usage.  A  heathen  author 
says :  '*  Qui  in  cruce  figendus,  prius  ipsam  portet,"  Ar'temidoj'us, 
1.  2,  cap.  61,  '  (hecfjoxfjct. ;  and  Plutarch  says  nearly  the  same 
thing:  "  Corpore  quidem  quisque  maleficorum  suam  eftert 
crucem."  Lib.  de  Tarda  Dei  Vindietd.  See  Vossius'  Har- 
mony. There  may  be  some  reasonable  doubt,  however,  whether 
this  custom  was  universal.  The  Evangelists  do  not  inform  us 
that  the  two  malefactors  who  were  crucified  with  Jesus  bore 
their  crosses,  and  the  Evangelist  John,  by  noticing  this  fact, 
which  the  other  Evangelists  omit,  seems  to  denote  it  as  pecu- 
liar— and  if  peculiar,  how  significant!  But  whether  so  or  not, 
the  fact  is  recorded  to  show  the  sufi"erings  with  which  it  pleased 
the  Father  to  afflict  his  beloved  Son.  And  what  a  spectacle ! 
The  Son  of  God,  in  his  human  nature,  bending  under  the 
weight  of  a  cross ! — a  spectacle  at  which  impiety  scofis,  but  in 
which  faith  perceives  a  great  mystery.  It  reminds  us  of  the 
oS'ering  of  Isaac  by  Abraham  at  the  command  of  God.  Gen. 
xxii.  3 — 6,  probably  on  the  same  place.  The  bearing  of  the' 
cross  may  perhaps  also  have  been  intended  as  an  act  emble- 
matical of  the  bearing  of  our  sins.     1  Pet.  ii.  24;  Isa.  liii.  6. 

Luke  xxiii.  26;  Mark  xv.  21;  Matt,  xxvii.  32.  "And 
as  they  led  him  away,  they  laid  hold  upon  one  Simon,  a  Cyre- 
nian,  who  passed  by,  coming  out  of  the  country,  the  father  of 
Alexander  and  Rufus ;  him  they  compelled  to  bear  his  cross : 
and  on  him  they  laid  the  cross,  that  he  might  bear  it  after 
Jesus." 

This  circumstance  is  not  mentioned  by  John ;  and  it  may  be 
observed  that  John's  account  does  not  contain  a  full  representa- 
tion of  the  crucifixion.  Luke  supplies  several  circumstances 
which  add  vividness  to  the  dreadful  scene,  and  Matthew  records 
some  which  the  other  Evangelists  do  not  mention.  This  we 
shall  observe  as  we  proceed.  We  have  no  reason  to  regard  the 
act  here  mentioned  as  dictated  by  humanity,  but  rather  by  a 
desire  to  hasten  the  execution.  Contrary  to  usage,  they 
scarcely  allowed  time  for  him  to  be  conducted  to  the  place  of 
execution  ;  and  seeing  him  bowed  down  with  the  weight  of  his 
burden,  they  violently  constrained  a  poor  African — a  stranger 
w^hom  they  chanced  to  meet — to  bear  the  cross.  The  suffer- 
ings which  had  been  inflicted  upon  the  human  person  of  our 
Lord  in  the  garden,  in  the  palace  of  the  high  priest,  and  in  the 
court  of  the  Prnetorium,  had  nearly  exhausted  his  human  frame, 
so  that  he  could  not  advance  with  the  speed  which  the  mad- 
dened haste  and  hate  of  the  high  priests  required.  While, 
however,  we  attribute  this  weakness  to  natural  causes,  we  must 
not  forget  that  his  word,  at  that  very  moment,  could  have  pros- 
trated them  all  at  his  feet,  as  it  did  a  few  hours  before,  in  the 


SIMON   THE   CYRENIAN.  399 

garden.  But  it  was  the  Divine  will  that  his  human  person 
should  thus  suffer,  not  only  by  stripes  and  bruises,  but  with  a 
natural  failure  of  its  physical  energies.  Properly  considered, 
it  was  one  of  the  means  which  Divine  wisdom  appointed  to 
conceal  his  Divinity  within  his  humanity,  not  only  from  men, 
but  from  Satan,  the  chief  adversary. 

From  the  time  of  our  Lord's  baptism,  Satan,  we  may  safely 
believe,  had  been  endeavouring  to  fathom  his  nature.  He  first 
put  it  to  the  trial  of  allurements.  These  having  failed,  he  tried 
the  course  of  torture  and  ignominy.  The  superhuman  patience 
of  the  Lord  must  have  increased  his  fears  and  his  doubts ; 
while  the  physical  weakness  of  his  body  would  naturally  tend 
to  allay,  if  not  to  remove  his  fears,  as  being  inconsistent  with 
the  character  of  the  Son  of  God,  which  he  claimed. 

It  has  been  made  a  question,  whether  Simon  was  a  Jew  or  a 
Gentile.  Some  of  the  early  Christian  writers  maintain  that  he 
was  a  Gentile,  and  therein  they  find  an  allegorical  intimation 
of  the  future  call  of  the  Gentiles.  Judging  by  his  name,  how- 
ever, we  should  incline  to  the  belief  that  he  was  a  Jew.  His 
residence,  also,  it  is  probable,  was  at  Jerusalem.  It  is  not  an 
objection  that  he  was  a  Cyrenian  by  birth,  inasmuch  as  we 
learn  by  Acts  vi.  9,  and  ii.  10,  that  many  Jews  from  the  city 
or  province  of  Cyrene  resided  at  Jerusalem.  Gyrene  was  the 
capital  of  Libya,  or  rather  the  Pentapolis.  Besides,  Josephus, 
Jewish  War,  book  vii.  chap.  38,  informs  us  that  many  Jews 
lived  in  that  country.  However  this  may  be,  the  honour  thus 
put  upon  him,  though  no  honour  was  designed,  was  not  the 
result  of  chance.  God  so  ordered  it  that  this  man  should  be 
the  first  associated  with  Christ  in  the  actual  bearing  of  the 
cross,  and  in  sharing  of  the  ignominy  and  shame  of  it.  On 
the  part  of  those  who  thus  rudely  forced  him  to  this  service,  it 
can  be  regarded  only  as  an  outrage,  such  as  might  be  expected 
from  a  lawless  mob ;  but  wherever  the  gospel  has  been 
preached,  this  service  has  been  told  for  a  memorial  of  him. 
Matt.  xxvi.  13. 

Some  have  conjectured  that  Simon  was  returning  from  a 
little  farm,  owned  or  occupied  by  him  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Jerusalem,  when  all  at  once  he  found  himself  in  the  midst  of  a 
great  tumult,  the  cause  of  which  was  unknown  to  him,  and  that 
suddenly  he  was  forced  into  a  service  proper  only  for  con- 
demned criminals.  His  sudden  arrest  would  naturally  excite 
alarm  for  his  own  safety.  Some  interpreters  suppose  that 
Simon  alone  bore  the  cross;  but  from  the  language  of  Luke, 
we  may  perhaps  infer  that  he  bore  only  a  part  of  the  weight, 
following  after  Jesus.  See  Vossius'  Harm.,  lib.  2,  cap.  vi., 
sec.  7.     But  what  must  have  been  the  feelings  of  Simon  after- 


400  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

wards,  when  he  knew  the  true  character  of  the  man  whom  he 
thus  followed,  and  whose  burden  he  thus  shared !  With  what 
force,  too,  must  these  Divine  words  have  struck  his  mind,  when 
he  remembered  this  event !  "  If  any  man  will  come  after  me, 
let  him  deny  himself,  and  take  up  his  cross  and  follow  me." 
Matt,  xvi.  24.  Grotius,  a  commentator  not  much  inclined  to 
mystical  interpretations,  finds  in  this  event  an  intimation  of 
the  call  of  the  Gentiles.  For  Simon  was  the  father  of  Alex- 
ander and  Rufus,  the  former  of  which  names  is  derived  from 
the  Greek  language,  and  the  latter  from  the  Latin.  The  union 
of  these  Gentile  names  under  that  of  their  father,  which  is 
Hebrew,  seemed,  as  Grotius  thought,  to  intimate  the  union  of 
Gentiles  with  Jews,  under  the  banner  of  the  cross  of  Christ. 
However  this  may  be,  these  three  persons  were  undoubtedly 
well  known  to  the  first  readers  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark. 

Luke  xxiii.  27.  "And  there  followed  him  a  great  company 
of  people  and  women,  which  [a?  women]  also  bewailed  and 
lamented  him." 

This  incident,  and  the  reply  of  Jesus  to  these  demonstrations 
of  pity,  are  mentioned  only  by  Luke,  and  they  add  a  deep 
and  melancholy  interest  to  the  scene.  It  is  to  be  observed, 
also,  that  the  words  which  follow  are  the  first  uttered  by 
the  Lord  Jesus  after  those  he  addressed  to  Pilate.  John 
xix.  11.  For  it  is  not  probable  he  uttered  any  which  one  or 
another  of  the  Evangelists  has  not  recorded.  But  who  com- 
posed this  great  company  of  people  and  of  women?  It  is  not 
probable  that  they  were  his  disciples,  though  his  person,  his 
doctrines,  and  his  wonderful  Avorks  were  probably  known  to 
them.  Thus  much  we  may  infer  from  their  sympathy,  which 
must  have  been  agreeable  to  the  human  soul  of  the  Saviour, 
after  the  barbarous  treatment  he  had  received,  and  from  his 
reply  to  them. 

And  here  we  have  another  example  of  the  mutability  of  the 
popular  mind.  Whilst  the  Lord  Jesus  was  in  the  hands  of  his 
accusers  before  Pilate,  he  appeared  to  the  people  worthy  of 
their  hatred  and  rejection.  This  feeling,  perhaps,  was  produced 
by  the  influence  and  artifices  of  the  priests.  But  when  left  to 
themselves,  the  people  remembered  his  works  of  beneficence 
and  their  own  acknowledgment  of  him  a  few  days  before  as 
their  Messiah  and  King ;  and  they  give  testimony  to  his  virtues 
by  their  grief.  For  observe,  it  was  Jesus,  not  the  malefactors, 
whom  theylamented  and  bewailed;  and  we  are,  therefore,  not 
to  confound  their  sorrow  with  the  sympathy  which  the  common 
people  often  feel  in  the  case  of  criminals  whom  they  judge 
worthy  of  their  fate. 

Luke   xxiii.    28.     "But   Jesus,  turning  unto   them,   said, 


CHRIST  PREDICTS  THE  NATIONAL  RUIN  OF  THE  JEWS.     401 

Daughters  of  Jerusalem,  weep  not  for  me,  but  weep  for  your- 
selves and  for  your  children." 

Those  words,  and  those  he  added,  how  pathetic !  Yet  they 
convey  no  comfort,  but  tend  rather  to  inspire  terror.  And  we 
observe,  that  although  the  whole  company  of  people  may  have 
joined  in  sympathy,  if  not  in  the  lamentation,  yet  the  reply 
was  addressed  only  to  the  women  who  bewailed  him.  What  he 
said,  however,  was  a  warning  to  all,  and  designed  to  secure  a 
blessing  which  w^ould  be  permanent,  through  a  sincere  repent- 
ance and  faith  in  his  name.  For,  as  members  of  the  doomed 
nation,  even  they  partook  in  its  doom,  if  not  of  its  guilt.  It  is 
probable — indeed  there  can  be  little  doubt — that  these  women, 
and  those  who  followed  in  their  company,  regarded  him  as 
innocent,  but  unfortunate  and  powerless — as  one  who  had  been 
effectually  overcome  by  his  enemies.  Yet  if  such  were  their 
sentiments,  our  Lord's  words  were  adapted,  if  not  designed,  to 
show  that  their  pity  was  misplaced.  For  oppressed  as  he 
appeared  to  be,  he  was  marching  onward  to  his  victory.  His 
exodus  from  humiliation  to  glory  was  designed,  yea  appointed, 
to  be  from  the  very  cross  he  then  bore.  Well  might  he  say, 
then,  "Weep  not  for  me,  but  weep  for  yourselves  and  for  your 
children." 

Let  us  try  now  to  imagine  the  scene.  Behold  the  Saviour, 
bending  under  the  weight  of  his  cross,  and  so  overcome  as  to 
need  assistance  to  bear  it.  Yet  upon  hearing  this  cry,  without 
asking  leave,  he  stops — he  raises  his  voice,  and  by  its  mys- 
terious power  arrests  the  march  of  his  executioners  and  the 
multitudes  who  w^ere  moving  onward  to  the  spectacle.  He 
speaks  with  the  same  peaceful,  tranquil  dignity  and  power  as 
ever  before,  even  when  in  the  temple.  He  turns  their  minds 
from  what  they  then  saw  to  the  future,  which  they  did  not  see, 
and,  as  on  the  day  of  his  triumphal  entry  into  Jerusalem,  Luke 
xix.  41,  so  now  again  he  forewarns  them  of  the  dreadful 
judgments  which  would  soon  overwhelm  them. 

Luke  xxiii.  29.  "For  behold,  the  days  are  coming,  in  the 
which  they  shall  say.  Blessed  are  the  barren,  and  the  wombs 
that  never  bare,  and  the  paps  that  never  gave  suck." 

The  history  of  the  Jewish  war  by  Josephus  shows  how  this 
prophecy  was  fulfilled.  The  Romans  invested  Jerusalem  at  the 
time  of  the  feast  of  the  Passover,  when  innumerable  multitudes, 
from  all  parts  of  the  country,  had  crowded  into  that  city  to 
engage  in  its  solemnities.  These  were  caught  as  in  a  net,  from 
which  there  was  no  escape.  Famine  ensued,  and  so  severe  was 
it,  that  mothers  ate  their  own  offspring.  Murders,  intestinal 
discords,  the  fury  of  a  portion  of  their  own  countrymen,  the 
hatred  and  cruelty  of  the  Romans,  filled  the  city  with  blood 
51 


402  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

and  carnage.  But  this  was  not  all.  The  axe  was  now  laid  at 
the  root  of  the  tree,  and  it  was  to  be  hewn  down,  as  John  the 
Baptist  had  predicted.  The  days  of  wrath — of  the  vengeance, 
predicted  by  the  prophets,  and  also  by  our  Lord,  had  com- 
menced, in  which  all  the  evils  and  the  curses  foretold  by  Moses 
and  the  prophets  were  to  come  upon  that  people;  in  which  they 
were  to  fall  by  the  edge  of  the  sword,  and  to  be  carried  captive 
into  all  nations,  and  their  land,  the  land  of  the  covenant,  was 
to  be  delivered  over  to  the  Gentiles,  and  held  by  them  in  sub- 
jection until  the  times  of  the  Gentiles  should  be  fulfilled.  Luke 
xxi.  24.  It  was  to  this  national  ruin,  and  the  long  train  of  woes 
which  were  to  attend  that  race  of  men  from  generation  to  gene- 
ration, even  to  the  end  of  the  times  appointed  for  the  continu- 
ance of  Gentile  power,  that  our  Lord  alluded.  Dan.  ii.  44; 
vii.  26,  27.  The  full  import  of  his  words,  therefore,  cannot  be 
learned  from  Josephus,  the  historian  of  the  Jewish  war.  We 
must  follow  that  people  in  their  dispersion,  and  read  their  his- 
tory from  that  day  to  this,  to  ascertain  their  full  import.  Nay, 
more ;  we  must  look  forward  into  the  future,  and  learn  what 
are  the  afflictions  which  yet  await  them,  before  we  can  exhaust 
the  meaning  of  these  words  of  the  Saviour. 

Luke  xxiii.  30.  "  Then  shall  they  begin  to  say  to  the  moun- 
tains. Fall  on  us ;  and  to  the  hills.  Cover  us." 

The  prophet  Hosea  employs  similar  language  when  predicting 
the  fall  of  Samaria,  the  capital  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel, 
Hosea  x.  8,  and  the  apostle  John  also,  when  describing  the 
opening  of  the  sixth  seal.  Rev.  vi.  16,  see  also  Isa.  ii.  10 — 19. 
It  is  the  language  of  extreme  terror,  of  confusion — of  despair. 
It  is  not  improbable  that  Hosea  and  our  Lord  refer  in  part  to 
the  same  events.  The  sin  of  the  ten  tribes  consisted  chiefly  in 
renouncing  the  house  of  David,  and  consequently  the  Messiah, 
who  was  to  descend  from  him,  and  in  renouncing  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem  for  gods  of  their  own  making.  The  sins  of  the  Jews 
at  this  time  were  of  the  same  nature.  They  renounced  the 
true  Messiah  before  Pilate  for  a  Messiah  of  their  own  imagina- 
tion— as  different  from  the  true  Messiah  as  were  the  idols  of 
Israel  at  Bethel  and  Dan  from  the  God  of  Jacob,  who  was  wor- 
shipped at  Jerusalem.  But  when  this  same  Messiah  shall  appear 
to  them  the  second  time,  then  indeed  the  scales  shall  fall  from 
the  eyes  of  some  of  them,  who  shall  then  believe;  while  the 
rest  shall  verify  to  the  letter  these  prophecies  of  Hosea  and 
John,  as  well  as  these  words  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  This  will  be 
at  the  conclusion  of  the  days  of  the  Divine  vengeance  for  this 
sin  of  that  people. 

Luke  xxiii.  31.  "For  if  these  things  be  done  in  the  green 
tree,  what  shall  be  done  in  the  dry?" 


THE  GREEN  TREE  AND  THE  DRY.  403 

This  is  figurative  language.  By  the  green  tree,  our  Lord 
undoubtedly  refers  to  himself.  By  the  dry,  it  is  equally  plain 
he  referred  to  that  doomed  people.  And  the  sense  may  be  para- 
phrased thus:  "If  the  green  tree,  the  good  olive  tree,  from 
■which  the  unction  of  grace  flows,  is  thus  treated,  what  can  be 
expected  for  the  dry,  fruitless,  useless  tree  but  burning?  What 
hope  can  the  heirs  of  the  curse  cherish,  if  the  supremely  blessed 
one,  the  source  from  which,  and  the  channel  through  which,  all 
blessings  come,  must  be  bowed  down  by  a  shameful  cross  in 
order  to  avert  the  wrath  which  they  have  deserved?"  How 
vain,  then,  is  the  hope  of  escape  from  the  deserved  wrath  of 
God,  except  in  the  way  of  his  own  appointment !  It  is  only  in 
that  justice  which  exacted  the  humiliation,  sufferings,  and  death 
of  the  Son  of  God,  that  we  can  learn  the  greatness  of  that 
mercy  which  pardons  for  the  sake  of  Jesus  Christ. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

THE   CRUCIFIXION. 

Fulfilment  of  Isaiah  liii.  12. — Diflerent  statements  of  the  Evangelists  reconciled. — 
An  additional  proof  of  Christ's  Divine  mission. — Sins  against  the  Son  of  Man, 
sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost. — The  seamless  coat. — Seeming  discrepancy  be- 
tween Mark  xv.  25  and  John  xix.  14  reconciled. — The  malefactor's  rebuke — 
his  penitence,  faith,  and  prayer — his  testimony  to  the  innocence  of  our  Lord — 
his  instruction  in  the  mystery  of  redemption. — The  consciousness  of  the  soul 
in  its  state  of  separation  from  the  body. — Existence  of  aiiection  in  the  future 
state. — All  things  accomplished  necessary  for  the  perfecting  of  the  new  crea- 
tion.— Public  displays  of  the  Divine  power. — A  new  dispensation. — Risen 
saints. — Impressiveness  of  the  last  scene. — Providential  arrangements  for  the 
accomplishment  of  Divine  purposes. — Nicodemus's  care  of  the  body  of  our 
Lord.— Jewish  mode  of  burial.— The  evidence  of  our  Lord's  resurrection  by 
Divine  power  placed  beyond  all  doubt. 

Luke  xxiii.  32.     "And  there  were  also  two  others — male- 
factors— led  with  him  to  be  put  to  death."  * 

In  such  company  was  our  blessed  Lord  taken  to  the  place  of 
crucifixion ;  thus  fulfilling  Isa.  liii.  12,  "  He  was  numbered 
with  the  transgressors."  When  we  suffer  unjustly  for  any 
cause,  we  naturally  desire  that  we  may  not  be  confounded  with 

*  In  the  folio  edition  of  the  authorized  translation,  published  in  1611,  and 
in  many  later  editions,  this  verse  is  printed,  "And  there  were  also  two  other 
malefactors  led  with  him,"  &c.  In  some  of  the  earlier  English  versions  it  is 
hetter  rendered:  "  And  there  were  two  others,  which  were  evil  doers,  led,"  &c. 
Both  Tyndale  and  Cranmer  omit  the  word  other.  "And  there  were  two  evil 
doers  led  with  him  to  be  slain."  The  error  of  the  authorized  version  is  cor- 
rected in  modern  editions,  as  above.  The  Rhemish  version  is:  "And  there 
were  led  also  other  two,  malefactors,  with  him  to  be  executed."  Wickliff 
renders  thus:  "Also  other  tweie  wicked  men  werea  led  with  hym  to  be  slayn." 


404  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

those  who  are  really  guilty  of  crimes.  But  in  this  life  just 
discriminations  are  not  always  made.  God  in  his  providence 
often  permits  his  true  and  faithful  servants  to  be  confounded, 
in  the  judgment  of  men,  with  those  who  are  his  enemies. 

Matt,  xxvii.  83.  "And  when  they  were  come  to  a  place 
called  Golgotha,  that  is  to  say,  a  place  of  a  skull," — 

The  word  Crolgotha  is  transferred  into  our  version  from  the 
Greek  text.  In  the  Hebrew  it  properly  signifies  the  head. 
The  same  word  occurs  in  Exod.  xvi.  16,  where  it  is  translated 
•persons ;  and  in  Numb.  i.  2,  where  it  is  rendered  by  the  word 
names.  It  occurs  also  in  2  Kings  ix.  35,  where  it  is  translated 
skull;  in  the  ancient  Greek  translation  xj)aviov,  from  which  we 
get  the  word  cranium,  and  in  the  Vulgate,  or  ancient  Latin 
translation,  Calvarium,  from  whence  the  supposed  place  of  the 
crucifixion  has  been  called  Mount  Calvary. 

The  common  opinion  of  commentators  is,  that  this  place  was 
so  called  from  the  fact  that  it  was  the  appointed  place  for  the 
execution  of  criminals.  Grotius,  however,  found  in  Joshua  v.  9, 
as  he  supposed,  a  prophetical  allusion  to  this  place,  and  the 
event  which  was  now  about  to  take  place. 

Some  commentators  adopting  the  opinion  of  Grotius,  connect 
with  it  a  tradition  which  prevailed  extensively  in  the  early 
Christian  Church,  that  Adam,  the  father  of  our  race,  was 
buried  there;  and  that  God  so  ordered  it,  that  the  reproach  of 
man,  that  is,  his  sin,  should  be  expiated  at  the  very  place  where 
the  first  sinner  of  mankind  paid  the  penalty  of  his  transgression. 
Following  out  the  same  idea,  they  even  understand  the  words  of 
the  apostle  Paul  in  Eph.  v.  14,  as  if  they  were  primarily  ad- 
dressed to  Adam.  It  is  unnecessary  to  say  that  we  have  no 
evidence  whatever  of  the  burial-place  of  Adam,  and  all  such 
interpretations,  without  facts  to  support  them,  are  at  best 
nothing  better  than  fanciful  conjectures.  Still  we  may,  with- 
out rashness,  so  far  adopt  the  idea  of  Grotius,  that  the  reproach 
of  man  was  at  that  time  and  place  rolled  away  or  removed; 
inasmuch  as  a  way  was  at  that  time  opened,  in  which  God 
could  be  just,  and  yet  justify  those  who  believe  in  Jesus.  See 
Vosmis'  Harm.  lib.  ii.  cap.  vi.  §  16,  for  a  full  account  of  this 
tradition. 

Matt,  xxvii.  34.  "They  gave  him  vinegar  to  drink,  min- 
gled with  gall,  and  when  he  had  tasted  thereof  he  would  not 
drink." 

If  we  turn  to  Mark  xv.  23,  we  find  a  different  statement, 
which  has  caused  the  commentators  difficulty.  Mark  says: 
"And  they  gave  him  to  drink  wine  mingled  with  myrrh,  but 
he  received  it  not." 

The  whole  difficulty  disappears  the  moment  we  receive  the 


CHRIST   CRUCIFIED.  405 

assertions  of  both  Evangelists  as  true.  We  have  observed 
repeatedly  that  each  Evangelist  omits  something  that  another 
supplies.  Accordingly  we  are  to  believe  that  three  potions 
were  offered  our  Lord,  viz.  two  at  the  place  called  Golgotha, 
and  the  third,  after  he  had  been  some  time  on  the  cross.  That 
mentioned  by  Matthew  was  no  doubt  offered  him  in  malice  and 
derision.  That  mentioned  by  Mark  had  intoxicating  qualities, 
and  was  commonly  given  on  such  occasions.  We  are  here 
informed  that  he  refused  both.  We  should  read  in  this 
connection  the  sixty-ninth  Psalm,  some  portions  of  which  can 
only  apply  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  see  verse  21.  To  this 
cruelty,  it  has  been  supposed  by  some,  Moses  alludes,  Deut. 
xxxii.  32.  A  reason  why  the  potion  mentioned  by  Mark 
should  be  refused,  is  to  be  found  in  the  priestly  office  or  act 
our  Lord  was  then  performing.  He  was  about  to  lay  his  body 
as  a  victim  upon  the  altar,  and  to  enter  into  the  Holy  of 
Holies,  as  our  great  High  Priest,  and  the  law  commanded 
Aaron,  "Do  not  drink  wine  nor  strong  drink,  thou  nor  thy 
sons  with  thee,  when  ye  go  into  the  tabernacle  of  the  congre- 
gation," Levit.  X.  8,  9. 

Luke  xxiii.  33.  "And  when  they  were  come  to  the  place 
called  Calvary,  there  they  crucified  him." 

The  word  Qalvary  in  this  verse,  and  the  word  shull  in  Matt, 
xxvii.  33,  are  only  different  translations  of  the  same  word,  so 
that  we  might  read  this  verse  thus:  "And  when  they  were 
come  to  the  place  which  is  called  skull,  there  they  crucified 
him."  The  same  place,  we  have  seen,  was  also  called  Gol- 
gotha. Whether  this  place  was  properly  a  mount  may  well  be 
■doubted.  But  without  enlarging  on  this  topic,  we  may  dwell 
a  moment  upon  the  Divine  simplicity  of  the  Evangelists.  They 
only  say:  "there  they  crucified  him."  They  express  no 
astonishment,  or  compassion,  or  feeling;  they  indulge  in  no 
reflection  on  the  event;  nothing  declamatory,  nothing  homi- 
letic.  They  do  not  describe  the  form  of  the  cross — as  some 
commentators  essay  to  do — although  several  different  forms 
were  used;  nor  do  they  speak  of  the  nails  by  which  he  was 
fastened,  nor  explain  how  it  was  done,  or  by  whom.  All  they 
say  is,  "there  they  crucified  him."  It  is  only  from  the 
history  of  the  resurrection  that  we  learn  that  nails  were  driven 
through  his  hands  and  his  feet.  Who,  without  the  guidance  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  could  thus  briefly  speak  of  the  cruel  death  of 
a  much  loved  friend !  When  the  Evangelists  wrote  these  brief 
narratives  they  had  learned  too  much  of  the  mystery  of  the 
cross,  and  the  place  it  occupies  in  the  Divine  government, 
to  enter  into  details  concerning  the  manner  or  the  means  of  the 
crucifixion.     Were  it  possible  for  us  to  search  the  wide  uni- 


406  NOTES   ON  SCRIPTURE. 

verse,  and  that  too  through  all  the  ages  of  eternity,  we  may 
■well  believe  it  would  not  be  possible  to  find  another  event  so 
wonderful,  so  sublime,  so  far-reaching,  so  enduring  in  its  con- 
sequences as  that  noted  by  these  four  words.  The  mysteries 
of  all  preceding  ages  terminated  in  this,  and  the  mysteries  of 
all  future  ages  will  be  opened  to  the  wondering  universe  by  the 
progressive  development  of  this  one  mystery  of  the  cross  of 
Christ.  The  simple  fact  speaks  infinitely  more  than  men  or 
angels  can  ever  unfold.  Angels  desire  to  look  into  the  great 
fact,  1  Pet.  i.  12,  in  the  contemplation  of  which,  matters  of 
circumstance  which  might  interest  the  curiosity  of  men,  are 
entirely  lost  sight  of,  as  things  of  no  moment. 

Luke  xxiii.  83.  "  There  they  crucified  him  and  the  male- 
factors, one  on  the  right  hand  and  the  other  on  the  left  [John 
xix.  18,]  and  Jesus  in  the  midst." 

The  suffering  of  our  Saviour  in  such  company  would  natu- 
rally incline  the  popular  mind  to  believe  that  he  also  was  a 
malefactor.  But  had  they  understood  their  own  prophets, 
which  were  read  in  their  hearing  every  Sabbath  day,  Acts  xiii. 
27,  they  would  have  perceived  that  such  companionship  in 
sufi'eiing,  so  far  from  casting  a  doubt  upon  his  innocence, 
proved  his  Divine  mission :  for  it  was  written  of  the  Messiah 
whom  they  expected,  according  to  their  own  prophets,  Luke 
xxiv.  25 — 27,  that  thus  should  he  suff'er.  For  Mark  adds, 
citing  Isa.  liii.  12: 

Mark  xv.  28.  "And  the  Scripture  was  fulfilled  which 
saith.  And  he  was  numbered  with  the  transgressors" — that  is, 
he  was  treated  as  though  he  were  himself  a  transgressor.  It 
is  impossible  to  understand  these  words  of  Isaiah  of  any  other 
than  the  Messiah.  Before  the  coming  of  Christ,  the  Jews  did 
apply  this  prophecy  to  the  Messiah,  and  the  Chaldee  para- 
phrase, see  Walton  s  Polyglot,  expressly  names  him  as  the 
person  intended.  It  is  true,  the  author  of  that  paraphrase 
takes  the  unwarrantable  liberty  of  changing  the  predictions 
of  ignominy  and  sufi"erings  into  victories  and  triumphs, 
answerable  to  the  hopes  of  the  nation,  and  worthy,  as  he 
supposes,  of  the  dignity  of  Messiah.  But  the  text  of  the 
prophet,  which  remains  uncorrupted,  is  irreconcilable  with  the 
paraphrase,  while  the  paraphrast  admits  that  the  Messiah  is  the 
person  really  intended  by  the  prophet. 

Had  our  Lord  therefore  suffered  in  company  with  just  men, 
this  prediction  would  not  have  been  accomplished.  In  the 
strict  sense,  indeed,  it  was  impossible  that  he  should  have  been 
numbered  in  this  world  with  any  who  were  not  transgressors; 
for  all  have  sinned,  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God.  Rom. 
iii.  23.     But  it  is  not  in  this  sense  the  prophet  is  to  be  under- 


CHRIST   CRUCIFIED  WITH   THE  MALEFACTORS.  407 

stood.  He  means  flagrant  offenders  against  the  laws  of  men, 
as  well  as  the  laws  of  God.  There  is  also  a  further  intimation, 
which  must  be  noticed.  It  is  probable  the  Jews  expected  that 
God  would  make  some  distinction  between  him  and  the  noto- 
rious offenders  with  whom  he  was  joined,  if  he  were  really  the 
promised  Messiah. 

This  will  appear  as  we  proceed.  It  is  sufficient  to  saj  at 
present,  that  the  absence  of  Divine  interposition,  to  save  him 
from  the  pains  and  death  of  the  cross,  completed  the  parallel 
intended  by  the  prophet  in  these  words :  "  He  was  numbered 
with  the  transgressors" — that  is,  until  he  had  finished  the  work 
of  redemption. 

We  observe,  however,  the  words  of  the  prophet  are  indefinite. 
He  does  not  say  with  how  many  transgressors,  nor  define  the 
place  among  them  he  should  occupy.  But  the  providence  of 
God  so  arranged  these  particulars,  as  to  give  even  to  his  sufi'er- 
ings  and  shame,  the  distinction  and  dignity  which  belonged  to 
him  as  Messiah.  His  cross  was  converted  into  a  tribunal  or 
place  of  regal  power,  and  planted  between  those  of  the  two 
criminals,  at  his  right  and  left,  who  represented  the  two  great 
classes,  into  which  he  will,  at  the  great  day,  divide  all  others, 
Matt.  XXV.  33 ;  and  from  this  place  of  suffering  he  actually 
dispensed  pardon  to  one  of  the  malefactors,  while  he  left  the 
other  to  die  in  his  crimes. 

Luke  xxiii.  34.  "Then  said  Jesus,  Father,  forgive  them, 
for  they  know  not  what  they  do." 

It  is  supposed  by  some,  that  our  Lord,  in  these  words,  prayed 
only  for  the  soldiers  who  were  nailing  him  to  the  cross,  and 
that  the  prayer  was  in  fact  uttered  while  they  were  performing 
that  act.  Others  suppose  our  Lord  intended  to  include  all  who 
were  in  any  way  instrumental  in  procuring  his  sufferings,  and 
this  appears  to  be  the  true  sense  of  the  petition.  That  the 
sins  of  the  diflFerent  actors  were  unequal,  there  can  be  no  doubt. 
The  Roman  soldiers,  it  is  probable,  were  much  less  enlightened 
than  their  governor,  and  he  had  much  less  knowledge  of  Divine 
things  than  the  most  unlettered  Jew.  Then  again,  among  the 
Jews  there  were  different  degrees  of  knowledge.  Still,  none  of 
them  were  aware  of  the  sin  they  were  committing;  because 
they  did  not  understand  their  own  Scriptures,  but  to  a  large 
extent  had  lost  their  true  meaning  by  false  expositions.  The 
apostle  Peter  alludes  to  their  ignorance  in  extenuation  of  their 
guilt,  Acts  iii.  17,  while  he  charges  their  act  upon  them  as  a 
crime,  notwithstanding  it  was  done  by  the  determinate  counsel 
and  foreknowledge  of  God.  Acts  ii.  23.  The  apostle  Paul 
also  declares,  1  Cor.  ii.  8,  in  the  plainest  terms,  that  none  of 
the  princes,  or  great  ones,  of  this  world  knew  the  mystery  of 


408  NOTES  ON  SCRIPTURE. 

the  Lord's  person,  and  this  ignorance  was  necessary,  in  order 
to  the  fulfilment  of  the  Divine  purposes;  for  had  they  known 
really  and  truly  that  he  was  God,  manifest  in  the  flesh,  the 
Lord  of  glory,  they  would  not  have  crucified  him.  And  upon 
this  ground  partly,  we  suppose,  our  Lord  declared,  that  sins 
against  the  Son  of  Man,  that  is,  all  sins  committed  against  his 
person,  while  he  tabernacled  in  the  flesh,  were  pardonable, 
while  those  committed  against  the  Holy  Ghost  could  not  be 
pardoned.  Mark  iii.  28,  29,  30;  Matt.  xii.  31,  32;  Luke  xii. 
10.  Without  entering  into  a  full  discussion  of  the  reasons  for 
this  difference,  it  will  be  sufiicient  for  the  present  to  say,  that 
it  depended  in  part  upon  the  difierence  between  the  nature  and 
objects  of  the  dispensation  of  our  Lord's  personal  ministry, 
and  the  dispensation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Son  of  Man 
came  to  sufi"er,  and  to  lay  down  his  life  as  a  ransom  for  many. 
The  efiicacy  of  his  atonement  extended  even  to  the  greatest  of 
sins  against  his  person  ;  that,  even,  of  taking  the  life,  Avhich  he 
came  to  lay  down.  But  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  has 
respect  to  a  new  dispensation,  nor  can  it,  as  the  sin  against  the 
Saviour's  person,  result  in  any  such  consequence.  It  issues  in 
no  shedding  of  blood,  whereby  to  remove  its  guilt.  On  the 
contrary,  such  a  sinner  can  only  place  before  himself  the 
fearful  expectation  of  a  coming  judgment  and  fiery  indignation 
which  will  destroy,  not  save  him. 

In  this  prayer,  we  have  a  means  of  judging  of  the  greatness 
of  the  Saviour's  mercy.  Though  the  priests  and  rulers  were 
actuated  by  hatred  and  envy,  yet  he  imputes  their  crime  rather 
to  their  ignorance  than  to  these  causes.  His  prayer  is  general, 
and  for  all  without  distinction.  He  pardons  them,  and  asks 
pardon  for  them,  at  the  very  time  they  were  adding  derision 
and  blasphemy  to  his  sufferings.  Had  he  not  been  truly  the 
Son  of  God,  and  the  disposer  of  his  own  gifts,  justice  would 
have  regulated  and  given  limits  to  his  petitions.  But  as  sove- 
reign, he  was  free,  and  as  the  Son  of  God,  he  had  the  power 
over  all  that  he  asked  of  his  Father;  and  from  his  cross  he  put 
up  his  unqualified  petition:  "Father,  forgive  them,  for  they 
know  not  what  they  do." 

How  forcibly  does  this  example  of  the  Lord  Jesus  impress  the 
exhortations  of  Paul,  in  Rom.  xii.  9 — 21. 

John  xix.  19.  ^  "And  Pilate  wrote  a  title,"  {prohaUy  at 
I  the  time  of  his  finally  passing  senteiice,) 

Mark  xv.,  26.        |     "The  superscription  of  his  accusation," 

Matt,  xxvii.  37.  )■  "And  they  set  it  up  over  his  head,"  (on 
the  cross,  John  xix.  19.) 

Luke  xxiii.  38.  "  in  letters  of  Greek  and  Latin  and  He- 
brew. 


THE   WRITING   OVER   THE   CROSS.  409 

John  xix.  19.       ^    "And  the  writing  was," 

Matt,  xxvii.  37.  V   "This  is  Jesus" 

John  xix.  19.       J     "Of  Nazareth,  the  king  of  the  Jews." 

It  was  a  custom  of  the  Romans  to  denote  either  by  a  writing 
or  by  the  voice  of  a  herald  or  some  minister  of  justice,  the 
cause  for  which  the  condemned  person  suffered.  When  a  writ- 
ing was  used,  it  was  suspended  from  the  instrument  of  his  pun- 
ishment, or  from  some  other  object  near.  A  similar  custom 
prevails,  it  is  said,  at  present  in  Turkey.  The  Romans  call  it 
the  Titulus,  Sueton.  in  Calig.  cap.  32,  in  Domit.  cap.  10.  John 
calls  it  by  the  same  name,  xix.  19;  Luke,  xxiii.  38,  uses  the 
word  Epigraph.  We  find  an  example  of  this  custom  in  the 
account  we  have  received  of  the  martyrdom  of  Polycarp,  a 
disciple  of  the  apostle  John. 

If  we  compare  these  epigraphs  or  superscriptions  as  they  are 
given  us  by  the  four  Evangelists,  they  all  differ  slightly.  Ac- 
cording to  Matthew  it  was  as  follows :  "  This  is  Jesus,  the  king 
of  the  Jews."  According  to  Mark,  it  was  simply,  "The  king 
of  the  Jews."  According  to  Luke,  "This  is  the  king  of  the 
Jeim.''  Finally,  John  reads  it,  "Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  king 
of  the  Jews."  This  discrepancy  has  been  urged  as  an  objection 
against  the  inspiration  of  the  Evangelists,  but  without  any  just 
ground.  Observe,  that  according  to  all  the  Evangelists  the 
superscription  ended  with  the  words,  "The  king  of  the  Jews." 
Matthew  prefixes  to  these  words,  "This  is  Jesus;"  Luke  the 
words,  "This  is,"  and  John  the  words,  ^^  Jesus  of  Nazareth." 
The  variation  does  not  at  all  affect  the  substance  of  the  writing. 
But  we  may  account  for  it  in  this  way :  Pilate  wrote  it  in  three 
different  languages,  and  it  is  not  improbable  that  he  slightly 
varied  it  in  each  language.  Let  the  objector  prove  that  he  did 
not.  Thus  in  the  Greek,  he  may  have  written,  "This  is  the 
king  of  the  Jews,"  while  in  Latin  he  may  have  inserted  the 
name  Jesus,  "This  is  Jesus,  the  king  of  the  Jews."  Still  dif- 
ferently he  may  have  worded  the  inscription  in  Hebrew,  "Jesus, 
the  Nazarene  (for  that  is  the  word  actually  used  by  John,)  the 
king  of  the  Jews."  Indeed  it  is  far  more  probable  that  such 
slight  variations  existed  in  the  original  compositions  of  Pilate, 
than  that  he  (Pilate)  should  have  translated  the  sentence  first 
written,  word  by  word,  with  exact  literality  into  the  other  two 
languages.  Assuming  that  such  was  the  fact,  each  Evangelist 
gives  the  inscription  in  that  one  of  the  forms  which  he  preferred, 
translating  it,  if  he  selected  the  Latin  or  the  Hebrew,  into  the 
Greek  language  with  substantial  accuracy.  Nor  was  it  neces- 
sary that  the  Evangelists  should  preserve  the  several  forms  un- 
mixed. They  wrote  in  a  language  different  from  those  in  which 
two  of  the  superscriptions  were  composed,  and  in  so  far  as  the 
52 


410  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

cause  or  accusation  set  forth  in  these  various  titles  was  con- 
cerned, they  performed  the  office  of  translators,  and  as  such,  it 
was  their  object  to  give  the  sense  rather  than  the  form  of  the 
original  words. 

John  xix.  20 — 22.  "This  title  then  read  many  of  the  Jews 
[for  the  place  where  Jesus  was  crucified  was  nigh  unto  the  city, 
and  it  was  written  in  Hebrew,  and  Greek,  and  Latin].  Then 
said  the  chief  priests  of  the  Jews  to  Pilate :  Write  not  '  The 
king  of  the  Jews,'  but  that  he  said,  'I  am  the  king  of  the 
Jews.' " 

We  learn  from  this  passage  what  the  chief  priests  considered 
the  substance  of  the  superscription  in  every  one  of  the  forms  in 
which  it  was  composed.  It  was  the  official  title  ascribed  by 
Pilate  to  Jesus. 

But  why  should  Pilate  write  the  superscription  in  three  lan- 
guages? The  Jews  would  have  preferred  that  none  should  be 
written  rather  than  such  a  one  as  this,  or  if  this  must  be 
adopted,  they  would  have  preferred  it  in  the  language  least 
understood.  No  doubt  Divine  Providence  designed  this  arrange- 
ment for  the  more  extensive  promulgation  of  the  truth  it  con- 
tained. As  to  Pilate's  motive,  we  may  reasonably  conjecture 
that  he  caused  it  to  be  written  in  Latin  because  it  was  the 
language  of  the  Roman  empire,  and  most  proper  to  be  used  in  all 
official  public  acts.  It  was  thought  essential  to  the  dignity  of  a 
Roman  magistrate,  in  the  times  of  the  republic,  to  speak  only  in 
Latin  on  public  occasions.  Val.  Max.  book  2,  chap.  2,  §  2. 
Tiberius  the  emperor,  was  a  great  stickler  for  this  point  of 
Roman  dignity.  Suet,  in  Tib.  chap.  71.  The  inscription  was 
probably  first  written  in  Latin.  A  similar  one  was  also  written 
in  Hebrew,  probably  because  it  was  the  language  of  the  country, 
and  in  Greek  probably  because  many  Hellenist  Jews,  from  dif- 
ferent countries,  were  present  at  that  feast,  and  understood  no 
other  language  but  the  Greek,  which  indeed  was  then  very 
common  in  Palestine. 

The  inscription  was  probably  written  in  large  letters,  so  that 
it  was  legible  at  a  distance.  It  was  put  in  a  conspicuous  place 
where  all  persons  passing  by  could  not  fail  to  see  it,  and  the 
only  reason  it  announced  for  the  mournful  spectacle,  was  the 
fact  that  he  was  "the  king  of  the  Jews."  To  the  mind  of  a 
Jew  at  that  time,  this  title  was  equivalent  to  Messiah  or  Christ; 
the  great  King  promised  by  the  prophets  and  expected  by  the 
nation  from  the  time  of  Abraham.  The  Magi  or  wise  men  from 
the  East,  Herod,  the  chief  priests,  and  the  scribes,  so  under- 
stood this  title.     Matt.  ii.  1 — 6. 

By  this  superscription,  therefore,  Pilate  virtually  declared 
him  to  be  the  Messiah — as  truly  as  the  Evangelist  Matthew  did 


Pilate's  refusal  to  alter  the  superscription.    411 

when  he  described  him  as  the  Christ  the  Son  of  David,  the  Son 
of  Abraham.  Matt.  i.  1.  Thus  understood,  Ave  can  imagine  how 
offensive  this  designation  must  have  been  to  the  priests  who  had 
so  perseveringly  demanded  the  crucifixion  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 
It  was  the  testimony  of  the  judge  and  governor  against  them, 
as  the  murderers  of  their  own  Messiah ;  of  that  king  who  was 
the  expectation  and  the  glory  of  the  nation.  They  felt  the  force 
of  the  epigraph,  as  their  appeal  to  Pilate  showed.  Some  per- 
sons perceive  in  it  a  sneer  at  the  hope  of  the  nation,  and  an 
insinuation  that  such  would  be  the  end  of  all  who  should  assume 
that  character  in  opposition  to  the  Roman  power;  but  we  take 
a  different  view,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  passage  next  noticed. 

John  xix.  22.  "Pilate  answered,  What  I  have  written  I 
have  written." 

We  learn  from  this  passage  that  Pilate  regarded  the  super- 
scription as  his  own  act,  and  whatever  might  have  been  his 
motive  in  preparing  it,  he  declared  by  this  title  a  momentous 
truth,  as  did  Caiaphas  when  he  prophesied  the  death  of  the 
Lord  Jesus.  John  xi.  49 — 51.  But  let  us  pause  a  moment  on 
this  circumstance ;  had  some  passer-by  merely  remarked  that 
the  superscription  was  not  correct,  and  that  it  ought  to  have 
been  so  written  as  to  charge  the  sufferer  with  usurping  the  royal 
office — or  had  the  chief  priests  done  no  more  than  complain  of 
it  among  themselves,  or  before  the  people,  there  would  have 
been  some  ground  to  suppose  that  Pilate  had  adopted  this  form 
of  words  inadvertently,  and  that  he  would  have  instantly  ordered 
it  to  be  altered,  had  his  attention  been  called  to  it.  The  provi- 
dence of  God,  however,  took  care  to  remove  all  grounds  for 
such  suppositions.  The  priests  were  made  to  feel  the  full  force 
of  the  inscription,  and  to  foresee  the  consequences  to  them  and 
their  nation  of  this  acknowledgment  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  by 
public  authority,  as  the  king  of  the  Jews.  They  therefore 
assemble  and  proceed  formally  in  a  body  to  Pilate,  from  whom 
thus  far,  they  had  extorted  everything  they  desired,  and  repre- 
sent to  him  the  error  of  the  superscription,  and  how  easy  it  was 
to  make  it  exactly  correct.  Write  not  "The  king,"  but  write 
^^ He  said  I  am  the  king,"  &c.  Such  a  change  they  would  natu- 
rally say  was  necessary  as  well  for  his  honour  as  their  own, 
since  a  real  legitimate  title  to  royalty  could  not  have  made  him 
a  criminal,  but  only  the  usurpation  of  royalty.  "  Say  not 
therefore  that  he  is  the  king;  but  that  he  claimed  to  be  the 
king  of  the  Jews.  You  have  as  great  an  interest  to  make  this 
change  as  we  have." 

Judging  from  the  compliant  disposition  of  Pilate  thus  far, 
we  should  not  have  anticipated  inflexible  firmness,  in  a  matter 
seemingly  so  slight,  so  reasonable,  and  so  well  calculated  to 


412  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

cover  up  his  own  iniquity.  What  Pilate's  motive  was  for  per- 
emptorily refusing  to  alter  a  letter  of  the  superscription,  it 
would  be  useless  to  inquire.  It  may  have  been  his  natural 
obstinacy,  perverseness  of  temper,  or  he  may  have  regarded 
the  request  of  the  priests  an  impertinent  interference  in  his 
concerns,  or  he  may  have  been  unconscious  of  any  motive. 
However  this  may  be,  we  see  clearly  an  overruling  Providence, 
both  in  dictating  the  words  of  the  title,  and  in  preventing  the 
slightest  change  of  it.  Pilate  wrote  this,  not  of  himself,  but 
being  the  governor  of  Judea,  there  was  a  necessity  that  by  a 
public  authentic  act,  he  should  announce  to  the  world,  from  the 
cross  itself,  the  true  character  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  that 
character  as  the  only  cause  for  which  he  suffered.  Had  Pilate 
been  a  prophet  of  God,  speaking  by  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  he  could  not  have  given  a  more  fitting  answer  to  this 
insidious  request  of  the  chief  priests — "  What  I  have  written,  I 
have  written — "  It  was  God's  truth,  and  not  to  be  changed. 

John  xix.  23.  "  Then  the  soldiers,  when  they  had  crucified 
Jesus,  took  his  garments  and  made  four  parts,  to  every  soldier 
a  part — and  also  his  coat." 

By  this  passage  we  know  the  number  of  soldiers  who  par- 
ticipated in  crucifying  our  Lord.  It  was  the  usage  among  the 
Romans,  as  has  been  observed  already,  that  soldiers  should 
execute  sentences  of  death  pronounced  by  civil  magistrates. 
It  was  also  their  usage,  as  it  is  still  in  some  countries,  that  the 
clothes  of  the  criminal  should  belong  to  the  executioners  of  the 
sentence.  Humanity  was  not  commonly  the  virtue  of  a  Roman 
soldier.  On  the  contrary,  his  ferocity,  when  but  little  excited, 
became  worse  than  brutal.  We  may  regard  our  Lord's  human 
frame  as  a  lamb  among  four  wolves,  who  rudely  stretch  it  on 
the  cross,  and,  regardless  of  his  patience  and  mildness,  nail  to 
it  his  outstretched  limbs,  and  then  hastily  and  roughly  raise 
and  plant  it  in  the  place  prepared  for  it.  This  done,  they  take 
their  seats  near  by,  and  unfeelingly  divide  his  clothing  among 
them. 

But  the  scene  suggests  other  reflections.  Our  blessed  Lord, 
on  one  occasion,  in  allusion  to  his  own  poverty,  said,  "The 
foxes  have  holes,  the  birds  of  the  air  have  nests,  but  the  Son  of 
Man  hath  not  where  to  lay  his  head."  Matt.  viii.  20.  Here 
we  behold  him  nailed  to  a  hard  cross — his  head  crowned  with 
thorns — his  clothing  divided  before  his  eyes  by  his  executioners, 
and  himself  bearing  the  shame  of- nakedness.  This  also  was  pre- 
dicted. Ps.  xxii.  18.  Yet  this  was  he  of  whom  it  was  written 
in  another  Psalm,  civ.  2,  "  Who  covereth  himself  with  light  as 
with  a  garment," — and  the  earth  with  beauty  and  magnificence, 
exceeding  the  splendour  of  kings.    Matt.  vi.  28,  29.     Well 


CHRIST'S   COAT.  413 

might  the  apostle  Paul  magnify  the  grace  manifested  in  this 
act  of  self-humiliation.  "Ye  know  the  grace  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  that  though  he  was  rich,  yet  for  your  sakes  he 
became  poor,  that  ye,  through  his  poverty,  might  be  made 
rich."  He  laid  aside  his  robes  of  glory,  and  allowed  himself 
to  be  deprived  of  the  habiliments  of  his  human  person,  that  he 
might  array  his  redeemed  in  fine  linen,  clean  and  white.  Rev. 
xix.  8,  and  exalt  them  to  a  partnership  with  him  in  his  throne. 
Rev.  iii.  21. 

John  xix.  23,  24.  "Now  the  coat  was  without  seam,  woven 
from  the  top  throughout.  They  said,  therefore,  among  them- 
selves. Let  us  not  rend  it,  but  cast  lots  for  it  whose  it  shall 
be." 

Luke  xxiii.  34.     "And  they  cast  lots," 

John  xix.  24.     "That  the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled," 

Matt,  xxvii.  35.     "Which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet." 

John  xix.  24.  "Which  saith,  They  parted  my  raiment 
among  them,  and  for  my  vesture  they  did  cast  lots.  These 
things,  therefore,  the  soldiers  did." 

It  is  wonderful  with  what  minuteness  the  sufierings  of  our 
Lord  were  foretold.  We  have  noticed  the  custom  which  assigned 
the  clothing  of  a  person  condemned  to  a  capital  punishment,  as 
a  perquisite  to  the  executioners.  The  custom  was  observed  in 
this  instance,  except  in  respect  to  one  garment.  That  garment, 
according  to  the  custom,  would  have  been  rent  into  four  parts, 
and  each  of  the  soldiers  would  have  had  a  part.  The  rending, 
however,  would,  as  the  soldiers  thought,  have  spoiled  it,  and 
they  chose  to  commit  the  disposal  of  it  to  the  chance  of  the  lot. 
The  reason  why  this  deviation  from  the  custom  was  made  is  not 
foretold,  Ps.  xxii.  18,  but  simply  the  fact.  The  Evangelist 
informs  us  how  the  fulfilment  was  brought  about.  But  observe 
with  what  coolness  and  indifierence  these  soldiers  discuss  a  mat- 
ter concerning  their  interest.  They  talk  upon  it  among  them- 
selves, while  examining  its  texture,  perhaps  admiring  its  work- 
manship, regardless  of  the  suffering  of  him  to  whom  it  belonged 
— and  profoundly  ignorant  of  the  great  mystery,  in  which  they 
were  acting  so  important  a  part. 

Some  commentators  regard  this  garment  as  typical  of  the 
unity  of  the  Church,  and  perhaps  we  should  not  err  in  so  con- 
sidering it.  For  the  Church  is  indeed  one ;  having  one  glorious 
Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  hope,  and  it  will  ultimately 
appear  as  one  great  body  showing  forth  the  glory  and  the  praises 
of  its  Head.  But  if  we  thus  interpret,  we  must  understand  by 
the  Church,  not  the  visible  body  of  professing  Christians  in  this 
world  of  sin,  but  that  perfected  body  which  our  blessed  Lord 
will,  at  his  coming,  gather  to  himself,  resembling,  almost  in 


414  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

notliing,  that  mixed  body  whicli  is  aptly  represented  in  the 
parable  of  the  tares  of  the  field.  We  need  not  say  that  this 
visible  Church  is  rent  with  strifes  and  divisions,  by  those  who 
have  scarcely  the  form  of  godliness,  or  at  least  exhibit  nothing 
of  the  power  of  godliness  by  holy  living. 

Matt,  xxvii.  36.  "And  sitting  down,  they  watched  him 
there." 

It  was  the  usage  of  the  Romans,  and  is  still  the  usage  of  most 
nations,  that  ministers  of  justice  should  remain  at  the  place  of 
the  execution  of  criminals,  until  the  sentence  is  carried  into 
complete  effect. 

In  respect  to  the  Saviour,  who  was  treated  as  though  he  were 
such,  it  was  necessary  that  there  should  be  actual  ocular  wit- 
nesses of  his  death ;  because  if  that  were  not  certain,  his  resur- 
rection from  the  dead  would  have  been  an  uncertain  thing. 
Both  Jews  and  Gentiles  were  present  on  this  occasion.  The 
Roman  centurion,  with  his  entire  company,  or  at  least  a  con- 
siderable detachment  of  it,  was  present  also  to  restrain  the 
priests  and  people  from  acts  of  violence,  which  in  their  nature 
would  tend  to  accelerate  the  Saviour's  death  before  the  time  he 
should  declare  all  things  finished,  and  voluntarily  surrender  his 
spirit  into  the  hands  of  the  Father. 

Mark  xv.  25.  "And  it  was  the  third  hour,  and  they  cruci- 
fied him." 

The  Jews,  as  well  as  the  Romans,  divided  the  natural  day 
and  night  into  four  watches  each.  They  also  used  the  division 
of  time  into  hours;  but  it  is  observable  that  no  mention  is  made 
in  the  New  Testament  of  the  second,  fourth,  fifth,  or  eighth 
hour,  and  very  rarely  of  any,  but  the  hours  at  which  their 
watches  commenced,  Matt.  xx.  6,  in  which  the  other  hours  were 
included.  The  Romans  commenced  their  computation  of  time 
by  hours  at  midnight.  Hence  the  sixth  Roman  hour  corres- 
ponded to  six  o'clock  in  the  morning,  but  as  they  reckoned  by 
the  watch  hours,  the  sixth  hour  was  deemed  to  continue  till  nine 
o'clock,  A.  M.  The  Jews,  on  the  other  hand,  began  their  com- 
putation at  six  o'clock,  A.  M.,  and  consequently  the  tliird  hour 
spoken  of  in  Mark  xv.  25,  commenced  at  nine  o'clock,  which, 
as  just  explained,  was  the  expiration  of  the  sixth,  and  the  com- 
mencement of  the  ninth  Roman  hour.  In  this  way  we  recon- 
cile the  seeming  discrepancy  between  John  xix.  14  and  Mark 
XV.  25. 

Luke  XXIII.  35.  "And  the. people  stood  beholdmg:  and 
the  rulers  also  with  them  derided  him,  saying.  He  saved 
others,  let  him  save  himself  if  he  be  the  Christ,  the  chosen  of 
God." 

It  is  truly  astonishing  that  the  people  could  behold  such  a 


THE  DERISION  OF  THE  RULERS.  415 

spectacle  -vritliout  the  most  solemn  and  even  painful  emotions. 
Yet  the  bitter  hatred  of  the  rulers  to  Jesus,  and  their  influence 
with  the  people,  was  so  great,  that  neither  seemed  to  take  any 
notice  of  the  malefactors.  They  showed  no  spite  or  hatred  to 
them;  they  uttered  no  revilings  against  them,  though  justly 
condemned,  but  only  against  the  Lord.  They  could  not  deny 
that  he  had  exhibited  superhuman  powers.  He  had  saved 
others  by  relieving  them  of  incurable  diseases — had  raised 
several  persons  from  the  dead, — well  known  facts  which  ought 
to  have  convinced  them  of  his  Divine  power  and  mission,  and 
yet  they  make  this  the  ground  of  taunt  and  reviling.  "Let 
him  save  himself  if  he  be  the  Christ,  the  chosen  of  God."  This 
shows  how  profoundly  ignorant  they  were  of  the  mystery  of 
redemption.  They  demanded,  as  a  proof  of  his  Messiahship, 
the  miraculous  exertion  of  his  power  to  deliver  himself  from 
their  hands,  not  knowing  that  such  a  proof  was  inconsistent 
with  the  very  object  of  his  mission.  Matt.  xxvi.  53,  54; 
Luke  xxiv.  26. 

Besides,  the  very  proof  they  demanded  would  not  have  been 
more  conclusive  than  the  raising  of  Lazarus  from  the  dead. 
For  the  power  to  restore  life  to  the  dead  cannot  be  less  than 
Divine,  and  adequate  to  accomplish  anything  which  its  pos- 
sessor might  choose  to  do. 

Observe,  also,  the  rashness,  not  to  say  the  impiety  of  such  a 
demand.  For  if  he  was  the  Christ,  the  chosen  of  God,  as 
their  words  implied  he  might  be,  it  was  impious  for  them  to 
prescribe  to  him  the  proofs  he  should  give  of  his  character. 
Nay,  more,  the  proofs  of  his  Messiahship  were  divinely  ap- 
pointed, and  sufficiently  made  known  to  them  in  their  own 
Scriptures.  It  is  evident,  too,  from  this  passage,  that  al- 
though their  views  of  the  character  of  the  true  Messiah  fell  far 
short  of  the  reality,  yet  they  regarded  him  as  a  great  Being, 
and  the  special  object  of  the  Divine  favour — as  God's  elect  or 
chosen  one. 

Luke  xxiii.  36,  37.  "  And  the  soldiers  also  mocked  him, 
coming  to  him  and  offering  him  vinegar,  and  saying.  If  thou  be 
the  king  of  the  Jews,  save  thyself." 

It  is  supposed  by  some  commentators  that  the  vinegar  had 
been  brought  to  that  place  for  the  refreshment  of  the  soldiers, 
who  were  appointed  to  watch  the  cross.  The  offer  of  some 
of  it  to  the  suffering  Saviour,  we  are  told,  was  made  in 
mockery.  They  accompanied  the  act  with  words  of  derision. 
What  idea  these  soldiers  (if  they  were  Romans  or  Gentiles) 
entertained  of  the  king  of  the  Jews,  we  have  no  means  of 
knowing.  What  they  said  may  be  thus  expressed,  "If  thou 
be  the  king  of  the  Jews,  so  vaunted  for  mighty  powers,  now 


416  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

is  the  time  to  exert  them  in  saving  thyself.  It  will  soon  be  too 
late." 

Matt,  xxvii.  39—48;  Mark  xv.  29,  32.  "And  they  that 
passed  by  reviled  him,  and  railed  on  him,  wagging  their  heads 
and  saying,  Ah !  thou  that  destroyest  the  temple  and  buildest 
it  in  three  days,  save  thyself.  If  thou  be  the  Son  of  God,  come 
down  from  the  cross.  Likewise  the  chief  priests,  mocking  him, 
with  the  scribes  and  elders,  said  among  themselves.  He  saved 
others ;  himself  he  cannot  save.  If  he  be  the  king  of  Israel, 
let  him  now  come  down  from  the  cross  and  we  will  believe  him. 
He  trusted  in  God;  let  him  deliver  him  now  if  he  will  have 
him ;  for  he  said,  I  am  the  Son  of  God.  Let  Christ  the  king 
of  Israel  descend  now  from  the  cross,  that  we  may  see  and 
believe." 

In  Psalm  xxi.  7,  8,  we  find  several  predictions  which  were 
fulfilled  by  this  cruel  conduct.  The  wagging  of  the  head  was 
a  sign  of  contempt  and  derision.  Job  xvi.  4;  Ps.  cix.  25;  Isa. 
xxxvii.  22.  The  stress  of  all  these  revilings  was  laid  on  our 
Lord's  seeming  inability  to  deliver  himself  from  their  hands, 
and  the  absence  of  any  Divine  interposition  in  his  behalf.  His 
claim  to  be  the  Son  of  God — of  power  to  build  the  temple  in 
three  days,  John  ii.  19,  20,  though  they  perverted  his  words, 
and  entirely  misunderstood  their  application,  seemed  to  be 
confuted  by  his  apparently  helpless  condition  at  that  time.  The 
proofs  he  had  given  in  support  of  his  claims  all  went  for 
nothing.  In  bitter  irony  they  call  him  "Christ  the  king  of 
Israel,"  coupling  with  this  title  their  demand  for  further 
evidence.  "  Let  Christ  the  king  of  Israel  descend  now  from 
the  cross,  that  we  may  see  and  believe."  There  he  was,  nailed 
by  the  hands  and  by  the  feet,  and  suspended  between  heaven 
and  earth — a  condition,  as  they  thought,  to  which  the  Son  of 
God,  the  king  of  Israel,  the  promised  Messiah,  could  not  be 
brought,  and  the  proof  they  demanded  was,  that  he  should 
deliver  himself  from  the  spikes  by  which  his  flesh  was  pierced, 
and  descend  to  the  earth.  This  they  seemed  to  regard  as  a 
fair  challenge.  Upon  his  doing  these  things  (they  said)  they 
would  believe.  But  that  was  not  a  kind  of  proof  they  had  the 
right  to  demand;  nor  one  which  it  was  our  Lord's  purpose  to 
give.  Even  if  he  had  given  it,  though  it  might  have  convinced 
their  minds,  it  would  have  left  their  hearts  unchanged.  What 
they  needed  was  not  evidence,  but  a  new  nature.  We  can 
easily  conceive  that  had  our  Lord  been  transfigured  before 
them  on  the  cross,  as  he  had  been  in  the  presence  of  Peter, 
James,  and  John,  and  if  Moses  and  Elias  had  appeared  to  him 
in  their  glorious  forms,  the  effect  would  have  been  over- 
whelming.    These  merciless  revilers  would  have  trembled  at 


EVIDENCE  INSUFFICIENT  TO  CHANGE  THE  HEART.         417 

the  sight  and  become  as  dead  men.  Just  such  was  the  effect 
produced  on  the  soldiers  who  watched  the  sepulchre  on  the 
morning  of  the  resurrection,  by  the  descent  of  the  angel  and 
his  glorious  appearance.  But  this  produced  no  permanent 
influence  on  their  minds,  nor  on  the  minds  of  the  priests  to 
whom  the  soldiers  related  the  miracle.  Though  perfectly 
convinced  of  the  fact  of  the  resurrection,  they  bribed  the 
soldiers  to  tell  a  lie,  and  the  soldiers,  instead  of  being  con- 
vinced of  the  Divine  nature  of  Christ,  and  the  tremendous 
sin  of  falsehood  in  such  a  matter,  took  the  money  and  did 
as  they  were  taught  by  the  priests.  Yet  in  so  doing  they 
exposed  themselves  to  the  severest  punishment.  For  in- 
formation on  this  subject,  see  the  Digests  of  Justinian,  title 
de  re  militari,  lib.  49,  tit.  16.  The  resurrection  was  indeed 
a  greater  miracle  than  a  descent  from  the  cross  would  have 
been,  which  the  chief  priests  and  the  scribes  demanded,  and 
yet  that  miracle,  as  we  have  just  seen,  had  no  effect  to  change 
their  hearts. 

But  evidence  of  this  kind  would  have  been  inconsistent  with 
the  Divine  plan ;  and  our  Lord,  during  his  public  ministry,  told 
them  so:  for  when  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  demanded  a 
sign  from  heaven — that  is,  some  higher  display  of  power  than 
any  he  had  publicly  exhibited — he  told  them  plainly  that  no 
other  kind  of  evidence  than  that  which  his  daily  works  fur- 
nished would  be  given,  except  the  evidence  of  his  resurrection 
from  the  dead — for  that  was  the  meaning  of  his  allusion  to 
Jonas  the  prophet — that  is  to  say:  evidence  which  would  not 
be  given  until  the  trial  of  the  nation  was  over,  and  they  had 
rejected  him  and  put  him  to  death,  and  had  thus  sealed  their 
national  doom  and  destruction. 

We  may  add,  that  this  same  mysterious  Being,  who  then 
hung  before  them,  as  they  thought,  helpless,  and  abandoned  of 
God,  had  appeared  to  their  fathers  upon  Mount  Sinai,  in  fire, 
with  thunders  and  lightnings,  causing  the  mountain  itself  to 
quake.  Exod.  xix.  14 — 19;  Heb.  xii.  18 — 24.  Yet  this  exhi 
bition  of  the  Divine  majesty  and  power  did  not  prevent  them 
from  falling  into  idolatry,  even  before  they  moved  from  the 
place  where  they  beheld  these  wonders.  Had  our  Lord  per- 
formed every  work  which  the  Jews  demanded  publicly  in  the 
face  of  the  nation ;  had  he  walked  on  the  sea,  or  cast  him- 
self from  the  pinnacle  of  the  temple  unharmed,  as  Satan 
tempted  him  to  do ;  had  he  summoned  legions  of  angels  to  his 
presence,  and  caused  them  to  appear  rank  over  rank  in  their 
glorious  forms,  such  exhibitions  would,  no  doubt,  have  over- 
powered their  minds,  and  might  have  compelled  their  obedience 
to  him  through  their  fears;  but  their  reviling,  envious,  mur- 
53 


418  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

derous  hearts  would  have  remained  unchanged.  The  work  of 
redemption  through  sufferings  and  death,  which  our  blessed 
Lord  was  now  performing,  was  indispensable,  according  to  the 
Divine  plan,  to  purchase  from  the  throne  of  God  the  office  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  by  whose  agency  alone  can  any  of  our  fallen 
race  be  prepared  for  the  kingdom  of  God. 

Luke  xxiii.  39.    ^      "And  one  of  the  malefactors,  which 
Mark  xv.  32.        Vwas  crucified  Avith  him,  cast  the  same  in 
Matt,  xxvii.  44.  J  his  teeth,  and  railed  on  him,  saying,  If 
thou  be  the  Christ,  save  thyself  and  us — and  reviled  him." 

John  omits  this  circumstance  altogether.  Matthew  says 
generally,  "the  thieves  also  that  were  crucified  with  him  cast 
the  same  in  his  teeth,"  and  Mark  also  includes  both,  "  And 
they  that  were  crucified  with  him  reviled  him,"  Only  Luke 
records  the  fact  with  precision,  which  he  does,  as  we  suppose, 
chiefly  with  the  view  to  introduce  another  deeply  interesting 
incident  which  the  other  Evangelists  also  omit.  There  is  really 
no  discrepancy  between  the  Evangelists.  Each,  it  is  apparent, 
omits  something,  which  his  purpose  did  not  require  him  to 
record.  John,  we  have  seen,  does  not  notice  this  circumstance 
at  all.  Matthew  and  Mark  omit  the  reproof  which  one  malefac- 
tor gave  to  the  other ;  also  his  prayer  to  the  Saviour,  and  the 
Saviour's  answer  to  him,  which  Luke  records  thus : 

Luke  xxiii.  40,  41.  "But  the  other  answering  rebuked 
him,  saying:  Dost  not  thou  fear  God,  seeing  thou  art  in  the 
same  condemnation  ?  and  we  indeed  justly,  for  we  receive  the 
due  reward  of  our  deeds;  but  this  man  has  done  nothing 
[dro;rov]  amiss." 

We  are  at  liberty  to  suppose  that  even  Luke  (though  more 
particular  than  the  others  upon  this  point)  does  not  record  all 
the  words  which  passed  between  the  three  sufferers  at  this  time. 
His  chief  purpose  was  to  record  for  the  instruction  of  the 
church,  the  repentance,  faith,  and  prayer  of  one  of  the  malefac- 
tors, which  certainly  did  not  occur  without  design. 

It  was  a  wonderful  exhibition  of  the  power  and  grace  of 
Christ  in  his  greatest  humiliation.  We  have  no  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  this  malefactor  was  a  believer  in  Jesus  before  he  was 
brought  to  the  cross,  but  rather  the  contrary.  Our  Lord  pro- 
tected all  his  disciples  from  the  perils  by  which  they  were 
surrounded,  John  xviii.  8,  9,  while  he  was  with  them.  Had 
this  malefactor  been  a  believer  before,  we  may  safely  conclude 
that  the  Lord  would  have  protected  him,  as  he  did  his  other 
disciples.  Nor  are  we  obliged  to  believe  that  his  conversion 
took  place  while  he  was  in  prison,  or  while  he  was  on  the  way 
to  Calvary,  or  at  the  instant  he  was  elevated  on  the  cross.  On 
the  contrary,  as  Matthew  and  Mark  inform  us,  though  Luke 


THE   PENITENT   MALEFACTOR.  419 

omits  this  circumstance,  he  joined,  that  is,  at  first,  with  the 
other  malefactor  in  his  revilings,  but  our  gracious  Lord,  to 
magnify  his  grace,  and  to  show  his  great  power  and  authority 
as  the  judge  of  men,  even  on  his  cross,  suddenly,  by  his  divine 
energy,  touched  his  heart  and  changed  it — gave  him  true  faith 
and  a  clear  discernment  of  his  own  divine  nature — stopped  his 
revilings  and  put  into  his  mouth  words  of  reproof,  confession, 
faith,  love,  confidence,  hope,  prayer.  Why,  we  may  ask,  should 
not  such  an  event  occur  at  such  a  time  and  under  such  circum- 
stances? And  why  should  such  an  event  occur  but  to  show  the 
power  and  grace  of  Christ?  And  why,  if  such  were  the  divine 
purpose,  should  it  not  occur  under  circumstances  which  tend 
most  to  magnify  these  attributes  of  our  blessed  Lord?  And 
how  could  this  be  more  strikingly  and  impressively  done  than 
by  thus  changing  words  of  reviling  and  taunt  into  words  of 
repentance  and  faith  and  love  ?* 

This  view  of  the  passage  proceeds  upon  the  assumption  that 
each  Evangelist  omits  something  which  another  supplies — an 
assumption  which  cannot  be  denied  as  to  three  of  the  Evangel- 
ists, and  which  we  think,  from  the  consideration  mentioned,  is 
true  of  Luke  also. 

Let  us  now  consider  for  a  moment  the  fact  itself — the  lan- 
guage of  the  penitent  malefactor,  and  our  Lord's  gracious 
promise  to  him. 

It  is  probable  both  the  malefactors  were  Jews,  and  both  con- 
demned for  a  robbery  which  they  had  committed  together.  For 
they  were  cognizant  of  each  other's  crime.  The  word  used  by 
Matthew  to  denote  it,  is  translated  robber  in  John  x.  1.  Some 
suppose  that  the  penitent  malefactor  had  formerly  been  a  dis- 
ciple, but  had  forsaken  the  Lord,  as  we  are  told  many  did  in 
John  vi.  66.  But  of  this  there  is  no  evidence.  It  is  plain, 
from  the  language  of  the  impenitent  malefactor,  that  he  had  no 
faith  in  the  power  of  Jesus  to  save  either  himself  or  them : — in 
other  words,  he  did  not  believe  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ.  Yet 
he  appears  to  have  entertained  the  same  opinion  of  the  extra- 
ordinary powers  of  the  true  Christ,  or  the  expected  king  of  the 
Jews,   as  the  deriding  priests  and  rulers  did,  for  he  repeats 

*  Chancellor  D'Aguesseau  (see  his  Works,  vol.  xii.  p.  383)  makes  the  follow- 
ing reflection  upon  the  passage:  "To  convert  a  robber  on  the  cross  and  promise 
him  paradise,  was  something  greater  than  to  deliver  himself  from  the  Jews. 
To  purify  in  a  moment  a  man  covered  with  crimes,  is  [chef-d\iiuvrc)  the  most 
excellent  work  of  the  Almighty  power  of  God,  and  a  complete  proof  of  the 
divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  This  was  the  first  decree  which  the  Son  of  God  pro- 
nounced from  the  tribunal  of  his  cross.  That  wicked  man  asked  only  to  be  re- 
memhiTfd,  and  Jesus  Christ  promised  him  a  share  in  the  heavenly  happiness  he 
himself  was  about  to  enjoy.  What  mercy  1  What  munificence!  A  precious 
motive  for  the  confidence  we  ought  to  have  in  this  Divine  Saviour!" 


420  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

their  words.  It  is  evident  also  from  the  words  of  the  other 
malefactor,  that  they  both  believed  in  one  God.  Notice  his 
appeal,  which  is  emphatic,  "Dost  thou  not  fear  God?"  as  if  he 
had  said,  "Art  not  thou  afraid  to  join  in  the  revilings  of  these 
wicked  men — thou,  who  art  justly  hung  up  between  heaven  and 
earth  for  thy  crimes?"  The  allusion  perhaps  is  to  the  differ- 
ence between  his  condition  and  that  of  the  other  revilers.  This, 
if  nothing  else,  should  prevent  him  from  following  their  bad 
example,  "Let  them  revile  if  they  will,  while  death  seems  far 
off,  but  not  thou,  who  hast  but  a  short  time  to  live." 

We  should  observe  also  the  testimony  this  penitent  malefac- 
tor bore  to  our  Lord's  innocence.  "But  this  (person)  hath 
done  nothing  amiss" — rather,  out  of  place,  Avhich  excludes  the 
idea  of  every,  even  the  least  impropriety  of  conduct.  Whether 
he  knew  the  Lord  Jesus  before,  we  are  not  informed.  Being  a 
condemned  criminal,  he  was  probably  confined  in  prison  during 
the  transaction  before  Pilate.  Perhaps  he  had  heard  of  his 
fame,  his  course  of  life.  But  this  is  not  recorded.  The  true 
explanation  appears  to  be,  that  having  been  taught  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  the  mystery  of  our  Lord's  person,  he  was  prompted 
to  utter  these  words,  as  well  as  the  prayer,  by  Divine  influence. 
That  he  was  a  true  believer,  and  taught  of  God,  cannot  be 
questioned.  That  his  conversion  took  place  suddenly,  Avhile  on 
the  cross,  as  has  been  suggested,  after  having  joined  in  words 
of  reproach,  is  also  highly  probable.  His  testimony,  therefore, 
was  that  of  a  renewed  man,  who  just  before  had  been  taught  of 
God  to  regard  the  Lord  Jesus,  at  whose  side  he  hung,  in  his 
true  character,  and  thus  taught,  he  could  no  more  revile  him, 
or  call  him  accursed,  than  any  other  man  speaking  by  the  Spirit 
of  God ;  nor  could  he  call  him  Lord,  as  he  immediately  after- 
wards did,  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  1  Cor.  xii.  3. 

Thus  explained,  the  testimony  of  this  man,  considering  the 
time,  place,  and  circumstances  under  which  it  was  given,  is 
very  striking.  It  comes  in,  by  way  of  supplement  to  the  testi- 
mony of  Pilate,  and  seems  providentially  appointed  as  an 
attestation  of  another  nature,  namely,  that  of  a  renewed  man 
speaking  from  the  cross,  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
In  this  respect,  it  is  a  testimony  of  a  much  higher  order  than 
that  of  Pilate. 

Luke  xxiii.  42,  43.  "And  he  said  unto  Jesus,  Lord, 
remember  me  when  thou  comest  into  [literally  m]  thy  king- 
dom. And  Jesus  said  unto  him,  V.erily  I  say  unto  thee,  To-day 
shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  Paradise." 

This  prayer  or  petition  evinces  extraordinary  faith.  It  was 
offered  to  an  apparently  helpless  and  dying  man,  and  that,  too, 
in  opposition  to  the  jeers  and  scoffs  of  the  priests,  rulers,  and 


THE  malefactor's   PRAYER.  421 

people.  It  evinces,  also,  a  knowledge  and  belief  in  the  future 
coming  and  kingdom  of  that  very  man  whom  he  thus  acknow- 
ledged as  the  Christ.  He  evidently  did  not  expect  that  he 
would  immediately  appear  in  his  kingdom.  As  for  himself,  he 
expected  soon  to  die,  but  he  believed  in  the  power  of  Jesus  to 
preserve  his  disembodied  soul  and  spirit  until  he  should  come 
again.  The  severe  sufferings  of  Jesus,  and  his  apparent  help- 
lessness, were  no  stumbling-block  to  his  faith,  which  was  much 
more  in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures  than  that  of  the  learned 
Jews,  who  expected  that  the  Messiah  would  establish  his  king- 
dom in  power  and  glory  at  his  first  coming.  No  doubt  he  had 
heard  the  revilings  of  the  priests  and  rulers,  and  the  multitudes 
calling  upon  him  to  prove  his  Messiahship  by  a  miraculous 
descent  from  the  cross ;  but  this  malefactor  knew  that  no  such 
proof  would  be  given.  He  knew  that  Jesus,  as  well  as  himself, 
would  die  upon  the  cross;  but  notwithstanding,  he  believed 
also  that  he  would  come  again,  and  that,  too,  in  the  kingdom 
he  claimed,  and  with  a  glory  and  power  which  would  place  his 
office  and  character  beyond  all  denial  or  doubt.  His  language 
implies  a  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  not  only  of 
Jesus,  but  of  himself,  which  shows  that  he  had  been  more  fully 
instructed  while  hanging  on  his  cross,  in  the  mystery  of 
redemption,  than  either  Peter  or  John,  John  xx.  9,  or  the 
other  disciples,  Luke  xxiv.  21,  were  at  that  time.  Indeed,  the 
more  we  consider  this  short  petition,  the  more  iBxpansive  and 
far-reaching  its  meaning  appears.  Evidently  he  regarded 
Jesus  as  an  all-sufficient  Saviour,  though  in  the  very  jaws  of 
death,  and  as  having  power  to  save  and  bless  whom  he  chose. 
He  regarded  him  also  as  a  king,  having  a  real  kingdom ;  and 
although  now  about  to  die,  yet  to  rise  from  the  dead,  and  come 
again  in  his  kingdom.  He  regarded  even  death  as  in  the 
power  of  Jesus,  and  that  though  dying  he  would  still  live — 
that  his  death  was  but  his  way  of  departing  from  the  earth  for 
a  time,  and  only  preparatory  to  his  return.  Such  thoughts  and 
knowledge  he  could  have  derived  only  from  the  teachings  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  Our  Lord's  answer  to  this  petition,  though 
brief  and  indirect,  was  full  of  consolation.  But  observe,  our 
Lord  does  not  answer  him  in  the  words  of  the  petition,  saying, 
"I  will  remember  thee  when  I  come  in  my  kingdom,"  but  he 
assures  him  of  his  present  care  and  protection,  "To-day  shalt 
thou  be  with  me  in  Paradise."  Malefactor  though  he  was,  and 
justly  suffering  for  his  crimes,  according  to  his  own  confession, 
yet  the  Saviour  assures  hira  that  he — meaning  his  spiritual 
nature — should  that  very  day  pass  with  him  into  a  state  of 
happiness,  there  to  remain  until  the  wished-for  time  of  his 
Lord's   coming   in   his   kingdom.     We    may   infer   from   this 


422  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

expression  the  consciousness  of  the  soul  in  its  state  of  separa- 
tion from  the  body.  It  is  in  the  soul,  in  fact,  the  personality 
of  the  individual  essentially  resides.  "This  day  shalt  thou" — 
not  thy  body,  but  thy  soul,  depart  (from  this  world)  with  me 
into  Paradise."  There  is  an  intimation,  too,  as  it  strikes  us, 
that  some  further  knowledge  or  assurance  should  be  imparted 
to  him  after  passing  into  that  state.  The  soul  of  this  believer, 
at  its  exit  from  the  body,  was  made  perfect  in  holiness.  It 
passed  with  full  consciousness  into  the  glory  of  Paradise,  with 
full  confidence  in  the  power,  the  goodness,  and  the  faithfulness 
of  his  Saviour  to  grant  him  all  he  wished. 

There  has  been  much  learned  discussion  upon  the  word 
"Paradise."  From  its  use  in  other  places  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, it  obviously  denotes  a  place  of  blessedness,  Rev.  ii.  7; 
2  Cor.  xii.  4,  where  the  souls  of  believers  look  forward,  with 
earnest  expectation,  to  the  coming  and  kingdom  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  great,  the  blessed  hope.  Tit.  ii.  13; 
Rev.  vi.  9,  10.  That  it  is  a  place  for  souls — and  not  for 
bodies — is  evident  from  the  fact  that  the  body  of  this  male- 
factor, as  well  as  the  Saviour's,  remained  during  that  day  on 
earth.  Perhaps,  also,  we  may  infer,  from  2  Cor.  xii.  4,  and 
Rev.  ii.  7,  that  to  the  same  place  believers  may  be  gathered 
when  raised  and  clothed  upon  with  their  spiritual  bodies.  These, 
however,  are  matters  into  which  we  should  not  too  curiously 
inquire.  The  substance  of  the  Saviour's  gracious  promise  is 
easily  understood.  It  contained,  virtually,  an  assent  to  the 
petition  of  the  penitent  malefactor,  and  an  assurance  of  happi- 
ness until  his  petition  should  be  literally  and  punctually  granted. 

John  xix.  25.  "Now  there  stood  by  the  cross  of  Jesus  his 
mother,  and  his  mother's  sister,  Mary  the  wife  of  Cleophas,  and 
Mary  Magdalene." 

By  the  next  verse  we  learn  that  John  also  was  standing  by, 
for  he  always  describes  himself  as  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved. 
But  besides  John  and  these  four  women,  all  his  acquaintance, 
and  the  women  that  followed  him  from  Galilee,  as  we  learn  from 
Luke  xxiii.  49,  stood  afar  off,  beholding  the  things  that  were 
done. 

As  to  these  persons  whose  love  overcame  their  fears,  it  is  to 
be  observed  that  Mary  the  wife  of  Cleophas,  was  the  mother 
of  James  the  Less  and  of  Joses,  Matt,  xxvii.  56;  Mark  xv.  40; 
and  in  Matt.  x.  3,  this  James  is  called  the  son  of  Alpheus. 
Hence  we  may  infer  that  Cleophas  and  Alpheus  were  the  same 
person.  James  the  Less  was  so  called  to  distinguish  him  from 
James  the  apostle.  Mary  Magdalene  is  mentioned  in  Matt, 
xxviii.  1.     There  is  some  difficulty  in  distinguishing  between 


Christ's  care  of  his  mother.  423 

the  three  Marys  in  some  cases.     Some  suppose  that  Mary  the 
sister  of  Lazarus  formed  one  of  this  small  group. 

We  may  judge  by  this  circumstance  of  the  terror  of  the  occa- 
sion, when  so  few  of  our  Lord's  disciples  ventured  to  come  near 
the  cross,  and  how  great  was  the  affection  of  those  who  over- 
came it.  Of  the  apostles,  none  but  John  stood  by  the  cross — 
and  of  his  numerous  disciples  and  followers,  only  four  feeble 
women,  and  one  of  these  his  mother.  Joseph,  the  husband  of 
Mary,  was  not  there,  and  from  this  circumstance,  as  well  as 
from  the  fact  that  our  Lord  commended  his  mother  to  the  care 
of  his  beloved  John,  it  is  reasonably  inferred  that  he  was  dead. 
John  xix.  26,  27.  "  When  Jesus  therefore  saw  his  mother 
and  the  disciple  standing  by,  whom  he  loved,  he  said  unto  his 
mother.  Woman,  behold  thy  son.  Then  saith  he  to  the  dis- 
ciple. Behold  thy  mother;  and  from  that  hour  that  disciple 
took  her  unto  his  own  home." 

We  are  unable  to  enter  into  the  sublimity  of  this  scene. 
While,  as  our  great  High  Priest,  he  was  offering  his  body  as  a 
sacrifice  on  the  cross,  our  Lord  was  not  unmindful  of  the  fleet- 
ing relations  of  this  life,  and  amid  his  sufferings  takes  care  to 
provide  for  the  comfort  of  his  mother,  who  now  felt  the  sorrows 
predicted  more  than  thirty  years  before  by  Simeon.  Luke  ii.  35. 
This  act  of  the  Saviour  towards  Mary,  may  be  regarded  as  per- 
formed in  the  twofold  character  of  her  son  and  her  Lord.  In 
the  latter  character  it  w^as  not  necessary  for  him,  in  order  to 
secure  her  comfort,  thus  to  commend  her  to  any  human  care. 
His  will,  unexpressed  by  words,  might  have  accomplished  all 
he  designed.  He  was  able  to  inspire  by  his  own  Spirit  the  con- 
solation his  words  were  intended  to  convey.  But  regarded  in 
his  human  relations  to  her,  our  Lord  exhibits  in  a  very  touch- 
ing manner  the  natural  affections  of  his  human  nature,  and  his 
language  justifies  the  belief  that  such  affections  will  exist  in 
the  future  state.  Our  Lord  here  constitutes  by  the  highest 
authority  in  the  universe — by  the  authority  of  the  God  of 
Nature — the  relationship  of  mother  and  son,  between  Mary 
and  the  beloved  disciple.  Can  we  suppose  that  his  view  was 
bounded  by  the  short  space  of  human  life,  which  in  her  case 
was  already  much  more  than  half  spent?  Can  we  believe  that 
this  transaction  will  ever  be  forgotten  by  either,  or  that  the  tie 
thus  constituted  will  ever  cease  to  be  recognized?  Our  Lord's 
own  human  relations  to  her  were  about  to  be  for  ever  changed. 
Hitherto,  as  a  man,  he  had  borne  to  her  the  affection  and 
reverence  of  a  son;  henceforth  he  was  to  sustain  to  her  the 
relation  of  ruler  and  Lord,  and  he  substitutes  a  son  to  her  in 
his  place.  It  was  one  of  the  acts  necessary  to  accomplish  all 
the  things  which  had  been  appointed  for  him  to  do,  verse  28. 


424  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

It  strikes  us  as  singular  that  John  should  almost  always  de- 
scribe himself  as  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved ;  may  not  this 
designation  have  respect  to  this  last  act  of  the  Saviour  of  put- 
ting John  into  his  own  place,  so  to  speak,  as  a  son?  Certainly 
it  was  a  striking  token  of  affection,  and  a  distinction  conferred 
on  no  other  of  the  disciples.  It  was  owing  to  the  grace  of 
Christ,  and  not  to  any  natural  quality,  that  John  on  this  occa- 
sion surpassed  the  other  apostles  in  courage.  He  was  too 
timid  to  enter  the  sepulchre  alone,  John  xx.  5,  yet  it  was  neces- 
sary that  he  should  be  standing  by  the  cross  at  that  moment, 
in  order  that  this  new  relation  should  be  thus  publicly  con- 
stituted. 

But  is  there  not  in  this  transaction  a  deeper  meaning?  Was 
not  this  thing  done  with  a  view  to  sunder,  if  we  may  so  speak, 
his  own  human  relations  to  her  whom  he  had  chosen  to  be  the 
mother  of  his  human  nature?  As  if  he  had  said,  "Woman, 
henceforth  behold  thy  son  in  him  who  stands  at  thy  side.  The 
work  for  which  I  came  forth  from  the  Father,  and  came  into 
the  world,  and  took  from  thee  this  body  of  flesh  and  blood,  is 
now  accomplished ;  I  am  now  about  to  return  to  my  Father  and 
take  again  the  glory  I  had  with  him  before  the  world  was. 
The  reasons  therefore  for  which  I  became  thy  son  have  ceased. 
Henceforth  regard  me  not  as  such,  but  only  as  thy  Lord.  Yet 
will  I  not  leave  thee  childless ;  behold  thy  son !  He  shall  sus- 
tain and  fulfil  to  thee  all  the  duties  of  that  relation.  My 
power  and  my  grace  shall  enable  him  to  fulfil  all  those  duties 
which,  as  thy  Lord  and  the  Lord  of  all,  I  can  no  longer  fulfil 
in  the  subject  character  of  thy  son." 

This  act  of  the  Saviour,  according  to  this  view  of  it,  is  not  to 
be  regarded  as  the  expression  of  mere  affection,  but  as  an 
official  act — a  kind  of  correlate  or  counterpart  to  that  act  of 
sovereignty,  by  which  Mary  was  at  first  chosen  out  of  all  the 
families  of  David,  to  sustain  to  him  this  most  intimate  of  the 
human  relations.  Luke  i.  28 — 31.  As  the  one  was  a  sovereign 
act  of  Divine  power  and  grace  by  which  he  filiated  to  her  the 
human  person  he  intended  to  assume,  so  the  other  was  an  act 
of  exfiliation,  so  to  speak,  or  a  sundering  of  that  tie  after  the 
object  of  it  was  accomplished.  At  the  same  time,  we  may 
regard  the  substitution  of  John  in  his  place  in  the  character  of 
a  son,  as  prompted  by  that  filial  affection  he  had  ever  shown 
her,  and  as  having  respect  chiefly  to  the  wider,  holier,  and 
more  enduring  relations  of  the  world  of  redemption  under  him- 
self as  the  second  Adam,  the  Lord  from  heaven.  See  Matt, 
xii.  46 — 50.  Thus  interpreted,  this  transaction  is  irrecon- 
cilable with  the  worship  which  has  since  been  rendered  to 
Mary  as  the  mother  of  God. 


THE    MIRACULOUS   DARKNESS.  425 

Mark  xv.  33.        ^       "And  when  the  sixth  hour  was  come 
Luke  xxiii.  44.     [^  there  was  a  darkness  over  all  the  earth 

[  until  the  ninth  hour." 
Matt,  xxvii.  45.  j  "  And  the  sun  was  darkened." 
The  hour  here  mentioned  was  the  sixth  Jewish  hour,  or 
12  o'clock  at  noon,  according  to  our  mode  of  reckoning.  The 
ninth  Jewish  hour  would  be  three  o'clock  p.  M.  The  darkness 
here  mentioned  could  not  have  been  occasioned  by  an  eclipse  of 
the  sun,  because  that  can  happen  only  at  the  new  moon.  The 
feast  of  the  Passover  was  always  celebrated  at  the  full  moon. 
This  reason  is  quite  conclusive.  But  there  is  another:  an 
eclipse  of  the  sun  can  never  continue  longer  than  two  hours, 
nor  be  total  longer  than  seven  minutes  and  fifty-eight  seconds. 
Some  authors  suppose  the  darkness  was  local,  not  extending 
even  over  the  whole  land  of  Palestine,  and  that  it  was  produced 
by  natural  causes.  Darkness,  it  is  said,  often,  if  not  always, 
precedes  an  earthquake.  It  did  at  Naples  in  the  year  79,  when 
Vesuvius  became  a  volcano.  See  Pliny's  Letters^  20,  book  vi. 
If  we  receive  this  explanation  we  may  yet  recognize  a  direct 
intervention  of  the  Divine  power  in  producing  the  earthquake 
and  its  attending  phenomena  at  that  time.  We  prefer,  however, 
the  more  usual  explanation,  which  regards  the  darkness  as  ex- 
tending much  beyond  the  neighbourhood  of  Jerusalem,  and  as 
being  itself  the  direct  product  of  Divine  power,  see  Acts  xvi. 
25,  26;  and  thus  considered,  the  event  would  not  be  more  a 
miracle,  if  it  extended  over  the  whole  earth,  than  if  we  suppose 
it  was  confined  to  the  land  of  Israel.  As  a  miracle,  it  is  to  be 
classed  with  the  quaking  of  the  earth,  the  rending  of  the  rocks, 
the  opening  of  the  graves,  the  rending  of  the  veil  of  the  temple. 
If  we  consider  the  sublimity  of  the  time,  and  the  stupendous 
mystery  of  the  Son  of  God  dying  in  a  human  body,  the  sym- 
pathy of  physical  nature  with  its  own  author  would  seem 
scarcely  a  miracle.  Our  Lord  declared  of  himself  that  he  was 
the  light  of  the  world,  John  viii.  12;  xii.  46;  and  although  the 
language  is  no  doubt  to  be  understood  in  a  figurative  or  moral 
sense,  yet  it  is  true  in  the  literal  sense.  For  it  was  he  who 
said,  "Let  there  be  light,  and  there  was  light."  Of  him  it  was 
also  said,  "  He  spake  and  it  was  done.  He  commanded  and  it 
stood  fast."  Ps.  xxxiii.  9;  civ.  2.  The  object  of  this  miracle, 
as  also  of  the  others  which  followed,  was  to  attest  beyond  a 
doubt  the  Divine  mission  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  During  his  public 
ministry  he  performed  publicly  all  the  works  which  it  was  pre- 
dicted the  Messiah  should  perform.  The  force  of  these  the 
nation  resisted.  He  was  even  required  to  perform  works  of 
a  diiFerent  kind.  "Show  us  a  sign  from  heaven."  Matt.  xvi.  1. 
"Let  him  save  himself  if  he  be  the  Christ" — "Let  him  now 
54 


426  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

come  down  from  the  cross  and  we  will  believe."  But  while  he 
refused  to  comply  with  all  such  demands,  at  his  departure,  he 
gave  them,  as  he  assured  them  he  would,  other  proofs  or  signs 
of  his  Messiahship;  and  now  he  was  beginning  to  show  them 
those  other  signs — signs  from  heaven,  signs  in  the  earth,  signs 
in  the  temple,  to  be  folloAved  by  the  sign  of  his  resurrection 
emblematically  set  forth  in  Jonah  the  prophet.  These  were 
miracles  of  power  which  should  be  considered  together,  because 
they  all  concur  to  one  and  the  same  end,  viz.,  that  of  showing 
him  to  be  the  Son  of  God  by  demonstrations  of  power,  Rom. 
i.  3,  which  were  convincing  even  to  heathens.     Matt,  xxvii.  54. 

It  is  remarkable,  that  during  this  period  of  darkness  our 
Lord  hung  in  silence  on  the  cross.  Before  it  commenced  he 
had  performed  the  last  office  of  affection  to  his  mother.  We 
may  easily  suppose,  too,  that  the  railings  of  the  priests,  elders, 
rulers,  soldiers,  and  passers-by  had  ceased.  Fear  and  amaze- 
ment must  have  filled  all  minds.  The  busy  preparations  for 
the  festival  must  have  been  suspended.  Even  the  unfeeling 
soldiers  who  had  parted  his  garments  among  them,  must  have 
been  awed  into  solemnity  and  silence.  If  we  may  derive  an 
inference  from  the  word  which  the  three  Evangelists  employ, 
the  darkness  was  deep,  like  that  of  a  night  without  stars.  See 
Gen.  i.  2,  LXX,  Luke  says  expressly  the  sun  was  darkened ; 
and  the  same  power  which  intercepted,  restrained,  or  diverted 
its  light,  could  intercept,  restrain,  or  divert  the  light  of  the 
stars.  This  was  the  period  probably  of  our  Lord's  greatest 
suffering;  it  was  the  closing  scene. 

Still  it  must  be  confessed  we  have  no  details  of  what  occurred 
during  this  portentous  period.  The  Evangelists  give  us  merely 
the  facts  and  their  order.  The  period  of  darkness  at  length 
terminates — perhaps  miraculously  all  at  once.  The  light  of  day 
instantly  takes  the  place  of  the  darkness.  The  voice  which  is 
then  first  heard  is  the  voice  of  Jesus,  not  feebly  uttered,  like 
that  of  a  fainting,  dying  man,  but  with  a  strength  which  startles 
all  the  watchers  of  the  cross,  from  far  and  near;  for  the  Evan- 
gelists Matthew  and  Mark  add: 

Matt,  xxvii.  45.         \      "  And  at  the  ninth  hour  [Matt. 

Mark  xv.  34,  35.  j  about  the  ninth  hour,  that  is,  after 
the  darkness  ceased,]  Jesus  cried  tvith  a  loud  voice,  saying,  Eloi, 
Eloi,  lama  sabacthani,  which  is,  being  interpreted.  My  God, 
my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?"  See  Ps.  xxii.  1.* 

*  "  The  time  has  certainly  been,  when  it  was  more  difficult  to  understand 
and  believe  those  passages  of  this  Psalm  (xxii.)  which  relate  to  the  sufferings 
of  Christ,  than  those  which  relate  to  the  conversion  of  the  nations,  (verses  25 — 
81 ;)  and  the  fulfilment  of  the  most  difficult  (incredible)  should  be  a  strong  con- 
firmation of  our  belief  in  the  fulfilment  of  the  rest.     As  certainly  as  the  Son  of 


THE  ABANDONMENT  OF  THE  FATHER.         427 

This  is  a  new  source  of  suffering.  The  desertion  of  his  dis- 
ciples, and  the  railing  and  mockery  of  the  Jews,  the  agony  of 
the  cross  drew  from  him  not  a  groan,  not  a  word.  These  he 
bore  in  silence.  But  now  he  is  abandoned  by  the  Father.  The 
word  "forsake"  in  this  place  is  emphatical.  It  conveys  the 
idea  of  a  forsaking  in  the  time  of  great  distress  or  calamity.  If 
we  inquire  why  he  should  be  thus  forsaken,  we  can  only  answer 
that  it  was  an  indispensable  part  of  the  plan  of  redemption. 
The  supposition  cannot  be  admitted  that  any  unnecessary  suf- 
fering— that  is,  any  suffering  not  absolutely  indispensable  to 
preserve  the  honour  of  God's  law,  was  inflicted  by  the  Father 
on  his  beloved  Son.  Yet  this  was  the  only  suffering  that  drew 
from  him  a  word.  But  how  was  it  possible  that  the  Father 
should  withdraw  from  him  ?  seeing  our  Lord  himself  had  said, 
"I  and  my  Father  are  one."  It  is  vain  for  us  to  attempt  to 
explain.  The  matter  is  too  mysterious.  It  enters  into  the 
very  nature  of  the  Divine  unity  and  personality.  We  can 
receive  it  only  as  a  fact.  But  inasmuch  as  our  Lord  is  called 
the  second  man — the  second  Adam,  and  was  now  repairing  the 
ruin  brought  in  by  the  first  Adam,  we  may  perhaps  infer  that 
the  forsaking  had  respect  in  some  way  to  his  Adamic  character, 
or  the  relation  he  was  to  sustain  to  the  world  of  redemption. 

Mark  xv.  35.  1       "  And  some  of  them  that  stood  by, 

Matt,  xxvii.  47.  J  when  they  heard  it,  said.  Behold  he 
calleth  Elias." 

It  is  plain  from  this  that  the  bystanders  misunderstood  his 
words.  The  expression,  as  given  by  Mark,  is  in  the  Syriac  or 
Aramaic  language,  which  was  understood  by  the  people  of  the 
country.  How  then  could  they  misunderstand  him?  They 
were  influenced,  perhaps,  by  their  fear,  that  after  all,  it  was 
possible  he  might  be  the  Christ,  and  if  so,  Elias  might  yet 
appear  for  his  deliverance.  Whether  all  the  bystanders  misun- 
derstood his  words,  we  are  not  informed.  Some  interpreters 
suppose  this  was  an  additional  mockery,  but  there  is  nothing  in 
the  narrative  to  warrant  such  a  conclusion.  The  fearful  dark- 
ness which  had  just  passed,  and  the  powerful  tones  in  which 
these  words  were  uttered,  would  naturally  not  only  repress  all 
disposition  to  insult  and  mockery,  but  inspire  fear. 

John  xix.  28.    "After  this,  Jesus  knowing  that  all  things 

God  cried  out  upon  the  cross,  "  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?" 
nnd  as  certainly  as  the  Roman  soldiers  parted  his  garments  among  them  and 
cast  lots  for  his  vesture,  so  certainly  will  all  the  ends  of  the  earth  remember, 
and  turn  to  Jehovah,  and  all  the  kiiidi-eds  of  the  nations  reverently  worship  in 
his  presence.  See  Ps.  Ixxxii.  8;  Ixvi.  1 — 4;  Ixxvii.  1—6;  xcvi.  7 — 13;  xcviii. 
1—9 ;  Ixxii.  17— 20."— Pur  yes. 


428  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

were  accomplished,  that  the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled,  saith, 
I  thirst.     Now  there  was  set  near  by  a  vessel  full  of  vinegar." 

Thirst  was  the  natural  effect  of  the  protracted  sufferings  of 
crucifixion,  but  it  was  not  with  a  view  to  have  the  pain  of  it 
allayed,  that  our  Lord  now  spoke,  for  upon  receiving  the  vine- 
gar which  was  now  offered  him,  he  surrendered  his  Spirit.  The 
inspired  prophets  were  the  first  historians  of  his  sufi'erings  and 
death,  and  there  was  one  other  prophecy  concerning  him  which 
must  be  fulfilled.  It  is  contained  in  Ps.  Ixix.  21.  The  vinegar 
was  probably  sour  wine,  which  had  been  provided  for  the  re- 
freshment of  the  soldiers.  According  to  the  Harmony,  this 
expression  was  uttered  after  the  darkness  was  passed,  though 
John  mentions  it  next  after  the  substitution  of  himself  in  the 
place  of  Jesus  as  the  son  of  Mary.  Nothing  indeed  had  occur- 
red during  the  interval  but  the  miraculous  darkness,  and  his 
exclamation  in  the  words  of  Ps.  xxii.  1.  John,  who  omits  these 
circumstances,  nevertheless  postpones  the  utterance  of  these  last 
words  to  the  conclusion  of  the  crucifixion.  This  is  evident  by 
the  connection. 

Matt,  xxvii.  48.  1       "And   straightway  one  of   them  ran 

John  xix.  29.  j  and  took  a  sponge,  and  filled  it  with  vine- 
gar, and  put  it  on  a  reed,  and  put  it  to  his  mouth  and  gave  him 
to  drink." 

The  person  who  performed  this  office  probably  was  some 
Jew,  who  took  a  deep  interest  in  the  scene.  The  soldiers,  it 
appears,  allowed  him  to  saturate  a  sponge  from  their  own 
vessel.  The  sponge  was  put  upon  a  short  reed  or  stick  of  hys- 
sop, that  being  the  most  convenient  way  of  conveying  moisture 
to  his  mouth.  While  this  was  doing,  others  who  stood  by 
said : 

Matt,  xxvii.  49.  "Let  be.  Let  us  see  whether  Elias  will 
come  and  save  him." 

This  surmise  of  these  bystanders  was  suggested  probably  by 
the  Saviour's  exclamation  and  complaint,  uttered  at  the  close 
of  the  darkness,  which  was  only  a  few  moments  before,  and  was 
misunderstood.  The  suggestion  shows  a  persistence  in  the  erro- 
neous belief  that  Elias  would  yet  appear  for  his  deliverance,  if 
he  was  really  the  Messiah  of  Israel. 

John  xix.  30.  "When  Jesus,  therefore,  had  received  the 
vinegar,  he  said,  'It  is  finished.'  " 

His  meaning  was,  the  work  he  was  to  accomplish  in  his  hu- 
miliation by  sufi'ering  was  finished.-  He  had  gained  the  victory 
over  the  powers  of  darkness.  All  things  which  had  been  written 
concerning  him  by  the  prophets  and  in  the  Psalms  had  been 
fulfilled.  The  time  of  his  exodus  from  humiliation  to  glory  had 
come.    Luke  ix.  31.     All,  in  fact,  had  been  done  which  was 


THE    WORK    OF    REDEMPTION   FINISHED.  429 

necessary  to  repair  the  ruins  of  the  fall.  As  if  he  had  said,  "It 
is  finished.  Now  is  the  Son  of  Man  glorified,  and  God  is  glo- 
rified in  him."  The  residue  was  the  assigned  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  his  work  would  follow  as  the  reward  of  the  work 
now  finished.  As  by  the  sin  of  Adam  all  was  lost,  so  by  the 
work  now  finished,  eternal  deliverance  from  its  effects  was  now 
made  sure.  Rom.  v.  17 ;  viii.  19,  22.  These  words  of  the  Re- 
deemer were  prompted  by  the  perfect  apprehension  of  the  sub- 
lime object  of  his  incarnation.  They  involve  a  fulness  of  meaning, 
which  eternity  alone  can  unfold.  Thus  regarded,  these  words 
marked  an  event,  equal  in  magnitude  to  the  work  of  creation, 
inasmuch  as  all  things  were  accomplished  which  were  necessary 
for  the  perfecting  of  the  new  creation. 

Matt,  xxvii.  50.  ^  "And  when  he  had  cried  again  with  a 
Luke  xxiii.  46.  Vloud  voice,  he  said,  Father,  into  thy  hands 
John  xix.  30.  j  [7iapadrjaop.ac]  I  commend  my  spirit,  [or 
more  exactly,  into  thy  hands  will  I  place  my  spirit  as  a  deposit 
to  be  kept,]  and  having  thus  said,  he  bowed  his  head,  and  gave 
up  the  ghost,"  [or  more  literally,  yielded  his  spirit  {d(frf/.£  to 
Ttuau/ia,  emisit  spiritum.  Matt.,)  expired  [i^sTcusucrs,  expiravit, 
Luke,  Mark,)  gave  up  the  spirit  (Tzapeoioxs  to  Ttusofia,  tradidit 
spiritum,  John.)*] 

Several  things  are  worthy  of  notice  in  this  place.  He  cried 
out  with  a  loud  voice,  thus  proving  that  he  retained  up  to  that 
moment,  in  full  vigour,  his  vital  powers  as  a  man.  In  any  other 
case,  it  would  have  been  a  sure  ground  for  believing  that  the 
death  of  the  sufferer  could  not  immediately  occur.  When  there- 
fore the  instant  afterwards,  or  rather  at  the  same  instant,  he 
gave  up  his  spirit,  he  proved  that  he  did  not  die  as  other  men, 
by  the  necessity  or  weakness  of  nature,  but  voluntarily ;  thus 
proving  his  own  declaration,  "  I  have  power  to  lay  down  my 
life;  no  one  taketh  it  from  me,  but  I  lay  it  down  of  myself." 
John  X.  18.  It  was  to  prove  this  that  the  fact  under  considera- 
tion was  recorded.  Luke  adds  a  circumstance  confirmatory  of 
this  view.  Matthew  says  merely  that  he  cried  with  a  loud 
voice,  without  recording  the  words  he  uttered.  Luke  gives  us 
the  very  words,  "Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit." 
We  are  not  to  consider  this  language  in  the  nature  of  a  prayer 
merely,  but  as  designed  chiefly  to  denote  an  act  done.     The 

*  The  word  ra^stSno-o^su,  employed  by  Luke,  is  used  in  a  law  sense  to  signify 
the  making  of  a  deposit.  Metaphorically  it  may  be  predicated  of  other  things 
which  one  man  may  deposit  in  the  hands  of  another.  We  maj'  predicate  it  iu 
the  figurative  sense  of  honour,  life,  soul,  spirit.  The  word  d7robv)i7iiai  is  com- 
monly used  in  the  New  Testament  to  signify  (morior)  to  die.  Rev.  xiv.  13; 
Heb.  vii.  8;  1  Cor.  xv.  22,  36;  Rom.  v.  7;  John  xii.  24;  xi.  50,  51 ;  Luke 
XX.  3G ;  Matt.  xxii.  24. 


430  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

•word  commend  does  not  so  aptly  express  the  true  sense  of  the 
original,  as  deposit,  transfer;  or  p)iit.  We  suppose  that  by  an 
act  of  power,  exerted  simultaneously  with  the  utterance  of 
these  words,  the  Redeemer  actually  separated  his  spirit  from 
his  body  and  placed  it  as  a  deposit  in  his  Father's  keeping, 
while  his  body  was  deposited  in  the  sepulchre.  This  act  of 
power  being  accompanied  by  words  uttered  with  a  great  voice, 
proved  that  the  Redeemer  was,  if  we  may  so  speak,  active  in 
dying,  and  that  his  passion,  properly  speaking,  consisted  in 
those  physical  and  mental  sufferings  which  preceded  the  act  of 
dissolution,  which  was  not,  strictly  speaking,  suffered,  but  rather 
done  or  performed  by  him  voluntarily,  and  as  truly  voluntarily 
as  the  act  of  incarnation.  This  view  is  essential  to  the  sym- 
metry and  perfection  of  our  Lord's  character  as  God-man"^  as 
well  as  of  his  priestly  work. 

Some  commentators  regard  these  words  as  intended  to  show 
our  Lord's  perfect  consciousness  of  his  Divine  Sonship,  notwith- 
standing his  sufferings;  and  no  doubt  such  was  the  fact.  But 
it  seems  the  chief  intention  of  these  words  was  to  denote  the 
voluntary  separation  of  his  spirit  from  his  body,  by  his  own 
inherent  power,  which  was  to  be  performed  by  him  as  God-man 
in  executing  the  plan  of  redemption.  In  other  words,  as  it  was 
a  voluntary  act  on  his  part  to  incarnate  his  Divine  and  spiritual 
nature  in  a  human  body ;  so  it  was  also  a  voluntary  act  on  his 
part  to  separate  his  spiritual  nature  from  the  material  frame  in 
which  he  had  temporarily  lodged  it,  and  deposit  it  in  the  keep- 
ing of  his  Father,  while  his  body,  during  the  appointed  time, 
rested  in  the  sepulchre.    See  1  Pet.  iii.  18,  19. 

We  have  now  reached  the  end  of  the  scene  of  the  crucifixion. 
The  event  occurred  at  the  ninth  Jewish  hour,  or  three  o'clock 
in  the  afternoon — the  time  when  the  evening  sacrifice  was  to  be 
offered — the  very  time  when  the  paschal  lamb  ought  to  have 
been  slain.  Up  to  this  time  our  Lord  retained  his  spirit,  though 
it  was  in  his  power  to  have  dismissed  it  the  instant  of  the  ele- 
vation of  the  cross.  This  retention  of  life  was  necessary  that 
he  might  fulfil  the  type.  The  darkness,  it  is  probable,  had 
ceased  only  a  few  moments  before.  The  return  of  light  was 
necessary  to  exhibit  clearly  this  last  action  of  the  Lord  on  the 
cross.  If  the  darkness  was  such  as  we  have  supposed,  or  even 
considerable,  as  no  doubt  it  was,  it  is  not  likely  that  the  person 
who  brought  the  vinegar  could  have  performed  that  service 
with  so  much  celerity.  Besides,-  the  return  of  light  was  neces- 
sary to  exhibit  those  other  miracles  of  power  which  occurred  at 
the  moment  of  the  dissolution.  It  is  evident  from  the  succeed- 
ing narrative,  that  the  centurion  and  others  were  eye-witnesses 
of  some  of  the  occurrences  next  related. 


SUPERNATUKAL    EVENTS.  431 

TVT.r.,™,  ,~^.rTT  ri      ro  1       "And  behold  the  veil  of  the  tem- 
JMatt.  XXVII.  51 — bo.  f    ,  ;.  •     X     •     •     xi         •  T  X 

T  xxiTT   45  h^       "^^^  '''^'^    ^'^  twain  m  the  midst 

j  from  the  top  to  the  bottom." 
The  temple  consisted  of  three  parts — 1st,  the  court,  vesti- 
bules or  porches,  where  the  people  assembled;  2d,  the  holy 
place,  where  the  priests  made  their  offerings;  and  3d,  the 
holiest  place  of  all — Sanctum  Sanctorum.  The  veil  here  spoken 
of  (ro  xaTa-£za<Tfuj.)  was  extended  before  the  Holiest  of  All. 
It  was  made  of  thick  rich  tapestry,  strongly  wrought.  2  Chron. 
iii.  14.  The  Rabbins  say  it  was  four  fingers  thick.  This  may 
be  an  exaggeration.  We  do  not  know,  but  we  have  reason  to 
believe  that  this  veil  was  very  thick  and  strong.  There  was 
another  veil  (xa2u/2fj.a)  suspended  before  the  holy  place — Sanc- 
tum— from  which  the  one  we  are  speaking  of  must  be  distin- 
guished. Comp.  Exod.  xxvi.  31  in  the  Hebrew  with  the  LXX. 
See  also  Heb.  ix.  3.  At  this  very  moment,  it  is  highly  proba- 
ble the  priests  were  in  the  holy  place,  preparing  to  light  the 
lamps  and  to  offer  incense.  What  must  have  been  their  amaze- 
ment at  this  sudden  opening  of  the  Holiest  of  All  to  their 
view!  With  what  words  did  or  could  they  announce  the 
miracle  to  the  people  without!  The  event  marked,  though 
they  did  not  know  it,  the  end  of  the  Levitical  dispensation. 
Their  own  functions  were  now  all  ended.  Christ,  the  true  pass- 
over  to  whom  the  sacrifices  pointed,  was  at  that  moment  slain. 
The  true  High  Priest  had  performed  his  sacrifice,  and  was 
about  to  enter  into  the  upper  sanctuary,  of  which  the  earthly 
temple  was  only  a  type.  Still,  if  regarded  simply  as  a  fact, 
irrespective  of  its  symbolical  import,  it  was  a  most  extraordi- 
nary miracle.  The  beam  or  fixture  from  which  this  thickly 
wrought  veil  was  suspended,  we  are  told  was  thirty  feet  above 
the  floor,  and  consequently  was  far  beyond  the  reach  of  any 
human  hand.  The  rent  was  from  the  top  {ano  ducoOsu)  as 
Matthew  and  Mark  take  care  expressly  to  say  (Iw^  xarco)  down- 
wards to  the  bottom,  and  as  Luke  says,  through  the  midst.  Such 
a  miracle*  must  have  greatly  alarmed  the  priests  and  rulers  of 
the  Jews.  Its  coincidence  with  the  death  of  Jesus  was  a  nota- 
ble circumstance.  They  could  not  account  for  it  by  any  natural 
cause.  But  besides  this,  there  were  public  displays  of  the 
Divine  power  of  a  different  nature,  for  "The  earth  did  quake, 
and  the  rocks  were  rent,   and  the  graves  were  opened,  and 

*  In  this  connection  the  reader  may  consult  Josephus,  Jeicish  War,  book 
vi.  chap.  V.  §  3,  where  that  author  relates,  that  during  the  siege  of  Jerusalem, 
the  eastern  gate  of  the  inner  court  of  the  temple,  which  was  of  brass  and  very 
heavy,  was  seen  to  open  of  its  own  accord,  by  which  "the  men  of  learning 
understood  that  the  security  of  their  holy  house  was  dissolved  of  its  own 
accord,  and  that  the  gate  was  opened  for  the  advantage  of  their  enemy."  See 
the  whole  chapter. 


432 


NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 


many  bodies  of  the  saints  which  slept  arose  and  came  out  of 
the  graves  after  his  resurrection,  and  went  into  the  Holy  City 
and  appeared  unto  many," 

The  quaking  of  the  earth  and  the  rending  of  the  rocks  must 
have  been  perceived  by  the  whole  population.  These  followint? 
immediately  after  the  obscuration  of  the  sun,  and  the  wide° 
spread  darkness,  were  signs  from  heaven  of  the  Messiahship 
of  Jesus,  certainly  as  great  as  those  they  had  just  before 
demanded.  Nevertheless,  they  made  no  salutary  impression  on 
the  nation.  This  will  appear  the  more  wonderful,  if  we 
consider  the  time  when  these  signs  and  wonders  in  heaven  and 
earth  occurred.  It  was  on  the  day  of  the  preparation  for  the 
great  Sabbath,  on  which  all  the  people  presented  themselves  in 
the  temple  according  to  the  command  in  Exod.  xxiii.  17.  This 
Sabbath  commenced  at  three  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  so  that 
it  was  ushered  in,  so  to  speak,  by  darkness,  and  its  opening 
hour  was  signalized  by  the  quaking  earth  and  bursting  rocks. 
All  their  plans  and  preparations  must  have  been  deranged  by 
these  extraordinary  events,  forced  upon  the  crowded  population 
of  the  city. 

Besides  the  rending  of  the  rocks  and  the  quaking  of  the 
earth,  another  supernatural  event  occurred — the  opening  of 
many  graves  or  sepulchral  monuments,  and  the  resurrection 
of  many  bodies  of  the  saints.  Chrysostom,  Cyril,  and  many 
of_  the  early  Christians  suppose  that  at  this  time  all  the 
saints  that  had  died  before  the  Saviour,  rose  from  the  dead. 
Joseph  Mede  supposed  that  the  number  of  these  raised  saints 
was  not  small.  (Works,  book  III.  chap,  xii.)  Others  suppose 
that  these  raised  persons  were  Christians,  or  professed  disciples 
or  followers  of  Jesus,  who  had  not  long  been  dead.  But  these 
are  conjectures.  As  a  fact  we  can  easily  receive  it.  Neither 
of  the  other  Evangelists  notice  it  at  all,  probably  because  they 
wrote  later,  and  for  the  benefit  of  Gentile  churches.  Matthew, 
who  wrote  for  the  Jews,  records  merely  the  general  fact, 
without  entering  into  any  particulars.  He  does  not  tell  us 
where  the  graves  were,  whether  near  Jerusalem,  or  in  other 
parts  of  Palestine,  nor  how  many  saints  were  raised,  (see  Dan. 
xn.  2,)  nor  in  what  age  they  died.  Some  suppose  that  they 
had  not  long  been_  dead,  because  they  would  not  have  been 
recognized;  but  it  is  not  said  they  were  recognized,  except  as 
persons  raised  from  the  dead.  We  are,  however,  expressly  told 
they  appeared  unto  many,  or  more  exactly,  {ii^scfapcal^aav) 
they  zvere  made  manifestly  hnoion  imto  many  who  probably 
were  alive  when  this  Evangelist  wrote,  and  could  be  appealed 
to  as  witnesses.     See  1  Cor.  xv.  6. 

Another  question  is  suggested  by  the  narrative :    Did  these 


RESURRECTION  OF  MANY  BODIES  OF  THE  SAINTS.  433 

saints  arise  simultaneously  witli  the  rending  of  the  veil  and  the 
death  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  or  not  till  after  his  resurrection? 
This  raises  a  question  upon  the  meaning  of  the  original  text. 
Some  translate  it  thus:  "And  many  bodies  of  the  saints  arose, 
and  having  come  out  of  their  graves,  entered  into  the  holy  city 
after  his  resurrection,  and  appeared  unto  many."  The  ob- 
jection to  this  interpretation  is,  that  it  seems  to  conflict  "vvith 
Col.  i.  18;  1  Cor.  xv.  20,  in  which  Christ  is  represented  as  the 
first-fruits  of  them  that  slept.  But  to  this  it  is  answered  that 
Paul's  language  in  the  places  referred  to  has  respect  to  the 
resurrection  of  the  saints  at  the  second  coming  of  Christ. 
This  seems  to  be  the  most  natural  interpretation  of  the  Evan- 
gelist's words.  The  fact,  however,  is  altogether  mysterious, 
and  the  purpose  of  it  is  not  explained.  If  we  may  indulge  in 
a  conjecture  on  this  question,  it  was  to  show  the  power  of 
Christ,  even  in  the  act  of  death.  Thus  regarded,  it  was  an 
illustrious  comment  upon  his  words  to  Martha,  John  xi.  25, 
"I  am  the  resurrection  and  the  life,"  and  a  pledge  of  the 
power  which  he  declared  he  would  exercise  over  all  his  people 
at  the  last  day.  John  vi.  39,  40,  44,  54. 

It  is  proper  to  remark  in  this  connection,  that  the  resur- 
rection of  these  saints  coincided  with  the  termination  of  the 
Levitical  economy,  and  thus  happened  at  the  very  time  when 
all  the  saints  of  the  Old  Testament  would  have  been  raised 
from  the  dead,  had  the  Jewish  nation  universally  received  the 
Lord  Jesus  as  their  Messiah,  with  the  obedience  of  faith  and 
the  homage  of  their  hearts.  On  this  supposition,  although 
there  was  a  divine  necessity  that  Christ  should  suffer,  he  would 
not  have  suffered  by  their  hands,  but  rather,  as  we  may  con- 
jecture, by  the  hands  of  the  Gentiles,  who  providentially  held 
and  exercised  the  power  of  government,  perhaps  to  meet  this 
contingency  in  human  regard,  and  then  at  his  resurrection  he 
would  have  established  his  kingdom  in  outward  glory  over 
his  own  people,  as  a  people  already  prepared  for  his  kingdom. 
But  the  Jewish  nation  shared  deeply,  yea,  deepest,  in  the  sin 
of  crucifying  the  Lord  of  glory.  They  were  therefore  rejected, 
and  the  kingdom  was,  so  to  speak,  postponed.  A  new  dispen- 
sation was  opened  for  the  gathering  of  another  elect  people, 
into  the  place  of  those  first  chosen,  according  to  the  represen- 
tation of  the  parable  of  the  marriage.  Matt.  xxii.  1 — 10.  Yet 
as  a  pledge  of  the  faithfulness  of  God  to  the  saints  of  the 
ancient  covenant,  and  perhaps  in  fulfilment  thereof,  as  well  as 
to  show  the  Divine  power  of  Jesus,  many — it  may  be  a  vast 
company — see  Rev.  xxii.  9;  xix.  10 — of  the  ancient  saints 
were  perfected  by  the  resurrection  of  their  bodies,  at  the  very 
time  when  all  would  have  enjoyed  the  same  advancement  in 
55 


434  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 

glory,  had  the  nation  been   faithful  to  the  covenant.     Exod. 
xix.  1—5;  Heb.  xi.  35,  40. 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  Evangelist  gives  no  account  of 
these  saints,  beyond  the  mere  fact  of  their  resurrection,  their 
entrance  into  the  holy  city,  and  their  appearance  to  many  after 
the  resurrection  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  He  is  silent  as  to  their 
local  habitation  in  the  mean  time,  and  also  as  to  the  time  and 
manner  of  their  disappearance.* 

Mark  xv.  39.  ^  "And  when  the  centurion  which  stood 
Matt,  xxvii.  54.  Vover  against  him,  and  they  that  were 
Luke  xxiii.  47.  j  with  him  watching  Jesus,  saw  the  earth- 
quake and  those  things  that  were  done,  and  that  he  so  cried 
out  and  gave  up  the  ghost,  they  feared  greatly  and  glorified 
God,  saying,  '  Certainly  this  was  a  righteous  man — truly  this 
was  the  Son  of  God.'  " 

Here  we  have  the  means  of  forming  some  idea  of  the  impres- 
siveness  of  this  last  scene,  for  which  all  minds  had  been  pre- 
pared by  the  darkness  and  silence  of  the  preceding  three  hours. 
The  whole  of  what  is  here  narrated  probably  occurred  rapidly 
within  the  compass  of  a  very  short  time.  Let  us  attempt  to 
group  the  occurrences.  First,  the  darkness  suddenly  ceases 
and  the  sun  appears.  Immediately  the  Saviour  breaks  the 
stillness  with  the  exclamation,  "Eloi,  Eloi,  lama  sabachthani!" 
A  moment  after  he  utters  in  a  lower  tone,  "I  thrist."  A 
watcher  runs  and  quickly  returns  with  a  moistened  sponge  to 
relieve  it.  Having  received  it  he  pronounces,  "It  is  finished," 
and  immediately  bows  his  head  and  surrenders  his  spirit,  but 
marks  the  act  by  words  uttered  with  the  full  power  of  the 
human  voice.  Instantly  the  veil  of  the  temple  is  parted — 
the  earth  quakes — the  rocks  are  rent  asunder — the  graves 
open — dead   bodies    arise.     All    these   things   were  not   seen 

*  Do  we  inquire  whether  these  risen  saints  appeared  in  houses  or  elsewhere? 
Whether  by  day  or  by  night  ?  Whether  their  appearance  was  momentary  or 
continued?  Whether  they  conversed  with  those  to  whom  they  appeared? 
Whether  they  spoke  of  the  realms  of  the  dead,  or  the  state  of  the  soul  after 
death,  or  of  the  entrance  of  Christ  into  these  realms,  or  of  his  power?  On 
these  and  all  such  topics  the  Evangelist  is  silent,  and  his  silence  is  a  strong 
internal  proof  of  his  inspiration.  On  precisely  such  themes  an  impostor  would 
be  most  likely  to  enlarge.  A  question  was  raised  and  much  discussed  by  the 
early  commentators,  whether  these  saints  were  raised  to  immortal  life,  or  died 
again.  (See  Augustine  Epist.  99,  ad  Evodium.  Euthymius.  Theophylact. 
Origen.  Beda.)  Eusebius  (Hist,  book  iv.  chap.  3),  and  Jerome,  in  his  Cata- 
logue of  Ecclesiastical  Writers,  mention  Quadratus,  an  early  martyr,  who 
declared  that  he  had  seen  many  persons  who  had  been  raised  from  the  dead — 
plurimos  k  se  visos  qui  sub  Domino  variis  in  Judcea  oppressi  calamitatihus 
sanati  fuerunt  et  quia  mortuis  resurrexerant — but  the  writings  of  this  martyr  aie 
lost;  yet  if  we  had  them,  it  is  not  at  all  probable  they  would  cast  the  least 
light  on  a  subject  v^hich  the  inspired  Evangelist  has  designedly  left  so  much  in 
obscurity. 


THE   TESTIMONY   OF   THE    CENTURION.  435 

indeed  by  th'e  centurion  and  the  watchers  of  the  cross.  What 
impressed  them  was  the  manner  in  which  Jesus  died,  and  the 
instantaneous  occurrence  of  the  earthquake.  Though  the  cen- 
turion was  a  heathen,  yet  there  was  a  meaning  in  these  things 
which  convinced  him  that  Jesus  was  not  only  an  innocent  man, 
but  a  man  greatly  favoured  of  God.  Some  suppose  the  cen- 
turion was  a  proselyte  to  the  Jewish  religion,  but  this  is  not 
said  of  him  in  the  Scriptures.  The  supposition  is  founded 
upon  the  words  ascribed  to  him  by  Matthew.  But  it  is  to  be 
remembered  that  Matthew  wrote  his  gospel  for  Jews,  and 
adopted  their  idiomatic  forms  of  expression.  Thus  regarded, 
the  words  "Son  of  God,"  or  "a  son  of  God,"  merely  denote  a 
person  who  is  an  especial  object  of  Divine  favour.  Luke,  who 
wrote  for  the  Gentile  church,  expresses  the  sentiment  of  the 
centurion  in  other  though  equivalent  language:  "Certainly 
this  was  a  righteous  man,"  or  "Certainly  this  man  was  right- 
eous." It  is  remarkable  that  all  the  recorded  testimonies  to 
our  Lord's  excellence  of  character  on  this  eventful  day,  except 
that  of  the  crucified  malefactor  and  Judas  his  betrayer,  were 
uttered  by  heathens.  Pilate,  the  wife  of  Pilate,  and  the  cen- 
turion, and  those  who  were  appointed  to  act  with  him,  all 
pronounced  him  "righteous,"  while  the  priests  and  rulers  still 
persisted,  in  spite  of  these  wonderful  things,  that  he  was  a 
deceiver.  Yet,  so  impressive  were  these  occurrences,  that  they 
deeply  affected  the  minds  of  others ;  for  Luke  adds : 

Luke  xxiii.  48.  "And  all  the  people  that  came  together  to 
that  sight,  beholding  the  things  that  were  done,  smote  their 
breasts  and  returned." 

The  people  spoken  of  in  this  verse  were  not  his  disciples  or 
particular  acquaintances;  for  these  stood  afar  off,  probably  be- 
cause they  were  afraid  to  go  near;  nor  were  they  priests  or 
rulers.  These  probably  were  dispersed  by  the  lengthened  dark- 
ness, and  the  business  of  preparation  for  the  Sabbath,  which 
was  drawing  near,  called  them  away.  The  phraseology  of  the 
Evangelist  conveys  the  idea  that  these  persons  had  been  attract- 
ed to  the  place  by  curiosity ;  but  upon  witnessing  these  prodigious 
displays  of  the  Divine  power  which  immediately  followed  the 
last  loud  exclamation  of  the  Saviour,  they  smote  their  breasts 
with  fear  and  amazement.  Perhaps  they  had  witnessed  cruci- 
fixions before,  as  they  were  common  under  the  Romans,  yet 
never  one  like  this.  The  spectacle  was  too  mournful,  too 
solemn,  too  awful  for  them  to  endure,  and  they  turned  away 
from  it  and  departed  to  their  homes. 

Whether  these  persons  had  taken  any  part  in  the  tumultuous 
proceedings  before  Pilate,  we  are  not  informed.  If  they  had,  a 
great  change  had  come  over  them.    The  only  remaining  circum- 


436  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

Stance  to  be  noticed  relates  to  the  acquaintance  of  Jesus,  and 
the  women  that  followed  him  from  Galilee.  Luke  xxiii.  49 ; 
Mark  XV.  40,  41 ;  Matt,  xxvii.  55,  56. 

It  is  not  easy  to  describe  or  even  conceive  the  feelings  of 
those  attached  friends.  Their  fear  and,  perhaps,  the  fact  that 
many  of  them  were  Galileans,  kept  them  at  some  distance  from 
the  cross,  although  within  full  view  of  it,  while  their  love  fixed 
them  to  the  spot  where  they  stood,  though  the  sight  was  too 
dreadful  to  be  endured  by  those  who  loved  him  less.  It  proves 
to  us  that  love  is  a  more  powerful  principle  than  fear  or  shame. 
It  is  to  be  observed  also  that  the  only  persons  named  or  de- 
scribed as  forming  a  part  of  this  group  of  the  spectators  were 
females.  This  testimony  is  most  honourable  to  the  female  cha- 
racter ;  and  although  woman  was  first  in  the  transgression,  and 
is  now,  in  her  earthly  relations,  subject  to  the  other  sex,  1  Tim. 
ii-  11— 1;^'.  yet  (i«ay  we  not  reasonably  infer  ?)  such  will  not  be 
her  condition  in  the  world  of  redemption. 

John  xix.  31—37.  "  The  Jews,  therefore,  because  it  was  the 
preparation,  that  the  bodies  should  not  remain  upon  the  cross 
on  the  Sabbath  day,  (for  that  Sabbath  day  was  an  high  day,) 
besought  Pilate  that  their  legs  might  be  broken,  and  that  they 
might  be  taken  away.  Then  came  the  soldiers,  aiid  brake  the 
legs  of  the  first,  and  of  the  other  which  was  crucified  with  him. 
But  when  they  came  to  Jesus,  and  saw  that  he  was  dead  already, 
they  brake  not  his  legs:  but  one  of  the  soldiers  with  a  spear 
pierced  his  side,  and  forthwith  came  thereout  blood  and  water. 
And  he  that  saw  it,  bare  record,  and  his  record  is  true :  and  he 
knoweth  that  he  saith  true,  that  ye  might  believe.  For  these 
things  were  done,  that  the  Scripture  should  be  fulfilled,  A  bone 
of  him  shall  not  be  broken.  And  again  another  Scripture  saith, 
They  shall  look  on  him  whom  they  pierced." 

The  2)arasceve,  or  preparation,  was  so  called  from  the  circum- 
stance, that  all  things  necessary  for  food  were  prepared  at  that 
time  for  the  Sabbath,  because  it  was  not  lawful  to  light  a  fire 
or  to  cook  on  the  Sabbath  day.  The  particular  part  of  the  day 
assigned  for  the  preparation,  some  have  supposed  began  at  the 
ninth  hour,  and  continued  until  sunset.  The  Sabbath  that  was 
approaching  was  a  very  solemn  festival,  as  it  occurred  on  the 
15th  of  the  month  Nisan,  and  was  the  first  day  of  the  Passover 
festival.  John  xix.  31. 

By  the  Jewish  law,  it  was  not  lawful  that  the  bodies  of  the 
crucified  should  remain  suspended  on  the  cross  during  the  Sab- 
bath, lost  the  land  should  be  defiled.  Deut.  xxi.  22,  23.  Jose- 
phus  informs  us,  book  iv.  last  chapter,  in  his  history  of  the 
Jewish  War,  that  the  Jews  of  his  time  observed  this  law  very 
Strictly.  It  was  the  fear  that  this  law  might  be  violated  through 


ACTS    OF   THE    SOLDIERS.  437 

their  meansj  which  induced  them  to  go  to  Pihite,  and  desire  him 
to  hasten  the  death  of  the  sufferers,  by  ordering  the  executioners 
to  break  their  legs.  This,  no  doubt,  was  their  motive,  not  to 
add  to  their  sufferings.  We  are  tokl,  that  this  was  commonly 
done  by  striking  the  sufferer  with  an  iron  mallet  just  above  the 
ancle.  We  may  conjecture  from  the  circumstances  of  the  nar- 
rative, that  this  request  was  made  shortly  after  the  darkness 
was  passed,  and  before  it  was  generally  known  that  the  Lord 
Jesus  was  dead.  It  appears  also,  that  until  the  sufferers  were 
actually  dead,  their  bodies  could  not  be  removed  from  the 
cross.  But  it  was  not  the  custom  of  the  Romans  to  allow 
the  bodies  of  crucified  persons  to  be  buried;  yet  this  custom 
was  departed  from  in  Judea  when  a  festival  was  near ;  for  in 
such  a  case,  the  bodies  of  the  deceased  were  delivered  to  their 
friends  for  burial. 

It  appears  that  Pilate  granted  this  request ;  for  soldiers  came 
and  broke  the  legs  of  the  first,  and  of  the  other  malefactor, 
and  would  have  broken  the  legs  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  had  he  been 
■  alive.  Probably  these  were  not  the  soldiers  who  were  sta- 
tioned at  the  cross,  but  others.  Matt,  xxvii.  54;  Luke  xxiii.  47, 
sent  from  the  Prsetorium  expressly  for  the  purpose.  "Then 
eame  soldiers,"  &c.  John  xix.  32.  Here  we  observe  again  an 
overruling  Providence.  It  was  not  a  feeling  of  awe,  tender- 
ness, or  humanity,  or  a  regard  to  decency,  which  restrained  the 
hands  of  the  soldiers;  and  had  they,  in  passing  from  one  cross 
to  another,  broken  the  legs  of  Jesus,  they  would  have  incurred 
no  censure  from  Pilate.  Nor  does  it  appear  that  they  were 
influenced  by  any  such  considerations ;  for  one  of  them  plunged 
his  spear  into  his  side,  knowing  at  the  same  time  that  he  was 
dead.  No  doubt  he  was  influenced  by  a  spirit  of  wantonness, 
or  at  least  by  thoughtlessness,  for  he  was  not  directed  to  do  so. 
Yet  here,  also,  we  see  the  hand  of  Divine  Providence;  for 
while  it  had  been  prophesied  of  him,  that  all  his  bones  should 
be  preserved  from  violence,  Ps.  xxxiv.  20,  which  was  necessary 
to  fulfil  the  typical  relation  between  him,  as  the  true  passover, 
and  the  paschal  lamb,  Exod.  xii.  46 ;  Numb.  ix.  12,  it  had  also 
been  prophesied  of  him  by  Zechariah,  xii.  10,  "They  shall  look 
upon  him  whom  they  have  pierced;" — a  prophecy  which  began 
to  be  fulfilled  at  that  time,  but  will  be  more  eminently  fulfilled 
when  God  shall  turn  again  to  that  people,  and  pour  out  his 
Spirit  upon  them. 

But  there  was  another  reason  for  this  act  of  the  soldier.  It 
was  necessary  that  the  death  of  Jesus  should  be  established 
beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt.  Hence  this  soldier  was 
allowed  to  pierce  him  in  a  part  where  a  wound  is  always 
mortal;  so  that  if  he  had  not  been  already  quite  dead,  this 


438  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

wound  would  have  extinguished  the  last  remains  of  life ;  and 
for  this  reason  John  has  recorded  the  fact,  perhaps  with  a  view 
especially  to  refute  some  heretical  opinions  which  had  already 
arisen  at  the  time  he  wrote. 

We  observe  again  how  the  act  of  one  is  ascribed  to  all.  It 
was  the  hand  of  the  Roman  soldier  that  actually  drove  the 
spear  into  the  Saviour's  side,  yet  the  whole  people  are  said  to 
have  pierced  him,  Rev.  i.  7 ;  Zech.  xii.  10,  and  thus  Peter, 
speaking  by  inspiration,  charges  the  whole  upon  them.  "Him 
....  ye  have  taken,  and  by  the  hands  of  lawless,  ungodly 
men,  have  crucified  and  slain."  Acts  ii.  23.  Pilate  who  con- 
demned him,  the  soldiers  who  led  him  to  Calvary  and  nailed 
him  to  the  cross,  and  the  Roman  who  wantonly  pierced  him 
after  he  was  dead,  are,  in  the  Divine  regard,  mere  instruments 
in  the  hands  of  the  priests  and  rulers  of  Israel. 

THE   BURIAL    OF   JESUS. 

John  xix.  38.        "^       "After  this,  when  the   evening  was- 

Mark  xv.  42,  43.  1  come,  because  it  was   the   preparation, 

Matt,  xxvii.  57.    [that   is,    the   day  before   the   Sabbath, 

Luke  xxiii.  51.    J  there  came  a  rich  man  of  Arimathea,  a 

city  of  the  Jews,  named  Joseph,  an  honourable  counsellor,  and 

he  was  a  good  man  and  a  just,  who  also  himself  waited  for  the 

kingdom  of  God,  being  a  disciple  of  Jesus,  but  secretly,  for 

fear  of  the  Jews — the  same  had  not  consented  to  the  counsel 

and   deed  of  them; — This    man  went  in  boldly  unto    Pilate, 

and   besought   Pilate   that   he  might  take  away  the  body  of 

Jesus." 

A  good  character  is  given  of  this  Joseph,  mixed,  however, 
as  the  best  human  characters  are,  with  some  infirmities.  He 
was  a  rich  man,  of  high  rank,  and  probably  a  member  of  the 
Sanhedrim  or  great  Jewish  council,  for  it  is  said  of  him 
that  he  did  not  consent  to  their  counsel  and  deed  respecting 
the  Lord  Jesus.  He  had  been,  and  was,  in  fact,  a  secret 
disciple  of  Jesus,  and  one  of  those  who  expected  and  earnestly 
hoped  for  the  kingdom  of  God.  But  an  emergency  had  now 
arisen,  which  overcame  his  fears  both  of  the  Jews  and  of  Pilate. 
His  master  was  now  dead,  and  although  he  suffered  as  a  male- 
factor, Joseph  resolved  to  do  honour  to  his  remains.  He 
therefore  entered  boldly  into  Pilate's  presence  (probably  at  the 
Prsetorium)  and  asked  from  the  governor  the  favour  of  re- 
moving the  body  of  the  Lord  frOm  the  cross,  contrary  to  the 
Roman  custom,  which  did  not  permit,  as  a  general  thing,  that 
the  bodies  of  crucified  persons  should  be  buried,  but  required 


Christ's  body  delivered  to  Joseph  of  arimathea.   439 

that  they  shttuhl  remain   suspended  until  their  flesh  putrefied, 
or  was  devoured  by  ravenous  birds  or  wild  beasts. 

Arimathea,  it  is  supposed,  was  either  the  Rama  mentioned  in 
Matt.  ii.  18,  or  more  probably  the  city  mentioned  in  1  Sara. 
i.  1,  in  the  territory  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim.  It  once  belonged 
to  the  Samaritans,  but  was  afterwards  annexed  to  Judea,  so 
that  it  was  properly  called  a  city  of  the  Jews.  1  Maccab.  xi. 
28—34;  Luke  xxiii.  51. 

Mark  xv.  44,  45.    ')      "And   Pilate  marvelled  if  he  were 

Matt.  XXVII.  58.      >  already  dead,   and   calling  to  him  the 

John  xix.    38.        j  centurion,  he  asked  him  if  he  had  been 

any  while  dead,  and  when  he  knew  it  of  the  centurion,  Pilate 

gave  him  leave,  and  commanded  the  body  to  be  delivered  to 

Joseph." 

This  request  was  probably  made  very  soon  after  the  Saviour 
expired,  and  Joseph,  we  may  believe,  being  near  the  cross  to 
witness  the  event,  hastened  to  Pilate  as  soon  as  it  occurred. 
His  affection  would  prompt  him  to  abridge,  as  much  as  possible, 
the  ignominious  exposure  of  his  beloved  Master.  The  Jews 
had  requested  of  Pilate  to  order  that  the  legs  of  all  the 
suiferers  should  be  broken  while  they  supposed  that  all  were 
alive,  and  Joseph,  it  is  not  improbable,  made  his  request  before 
the  soldiers  could  have  had  time  to  execute  the  command  of 
Pilate  to  hasten  their  death.  For  Pilate  was  evidently  sur- 
prised by  the  request  of  Joseph.  He  could  not  believe  that 
Jesus  was  so  soon  dead,  nor  did  he  believe  it  on  Joseph's  word. 
We  are  told  that  persons  who  were  crucified  in  the  full  vigour 
of  life  and  health,  often  hung  suffering  several  days  before 
they  expired.  Hence  it  seemed  incredible  to  him  that  a  man 
like  our  Lord,  in  the  vigour  of  life,  without  blemish,  Levit. 
xxi.  16 — 23,  and  in  perfect  soundness,  who  had  endured 
scourging  with  such  amazing  fortitude,  should  have  died  so 
quickly,  contrary  to  his  observation  and  experience.  Accor- 
dingly, he  sent  for  the  centurion  who  superintended  the  exe- 
cution, and  who  probably  remained  at  the  place;  for  it  was  his 
duty  to  remain  there  until  the  death  of  the  sufferers,  and 
inquired  of  him  whether  the  fact  was  so,  before  he  assented  to 
the  request  of  Joseph.  It  is  apparent  from  the  language  of 
Mark,  that  Pilate  did  not  confine  his  inquiry  to  the  fact 
whether  he  was  dead  or  not.  It  seemed  so  extraordinary  that 
he  wished  to  know  how  long  he  had  been  dead — whether  he 
had  been  dead  any  considerable  time.  It  may  be,  also,  that 
the  earthquake  had  excited  his  fears  still  more  than  the 
saying  of  the  Jews,  as  to  his  superhuman  character;  and  he 
may  have  been  desirous  to  know  whether  the  death  of  Jesus 
happened  at  the  same  time  with  the  earthquake.     But  these 


440  NOTES   ON    SCRIPTURE. 

are  mere  surmises,  although  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
Pilate  must  have  been  deeply  impressed  with  the  occurrences 
of  that  day. 

Plaving  ascertained  the  fact,  Pilate  freely  granted  the  re- 
quest, and  gave  direction  to  the  centurion  to  remove  the  body 
and  deliver  it  to  Joseph.  Mark's  words  {iocopr^aaro  to  ocofia 
donavit)  may  be  rendered,  he  made  a  present  of  the  body  to 
Joseph,  alluding  probably  to  the  common  practice  of  Roman 
governors,  and,  perhaps,  to  that  of  Pilate,  on  other  occasions, 
of  demanding  money  for  the  privilege  of  removing  a  dead  body 
from  the  cross  for  burial.  This  is  the  more  probable  as  Pilate 
condemned  him  so  unwillingly  and  against  his  own  judgment. 
It  is  not  expressly  said  that  the  command  to  remove  the  body 
was  given  to  the  centurion,  yet  as  Pilate  had  acted  through  him, 
and  had  just  sent  for  him,  it  is  not  improbable  that  this 
direction  also  was  given  to  him.  Matt,  xxvii.  58.  Nor  do  the 
Evangelists  inform  us  expressly  who  removed  the  body  from 
the  cross.  Luke  xxiii.  53,  seems  to  ascribe  the  act  to  Joseph, 
though  the  centurion,  acting  by  the  command  of  Pilate,  may 
have  taken  part  in  it.  We  have  seen  how  deeply  this  officer 
was  impressed  by  the  scene  of  the  crucifixion,  and  we  can 
imagine  that  his  feelings  were  such  as  to  prevent  all  rudeness 
and  violence  in  the  performance  of  that  duty.  It  was  per- 
formed probably  while  the  two  malefactors  were  still  living, 
and  if  so,  in  the  presence  at  least  of  the  centurion  and 
soldiers. 

Here  we  may  observe  again  how  Divine  Providence  accom- 
plishes its  plans.  It  had  been  prophesied  of  the  Messiah,  Isa. 
liii.  9,  that  he  should  be  with  the  rich  after  his  death,  and 
Joseph  of  Arimathea  was  emboldened  by  God's  Spirit,  contrary 
to  his  former  conduct,  to  appear  before  Pilate  with  his  unusual 
request.  It  was  necessary,  too,  that  the  dead  body  of  the 
Lord  should  be  cared  for,  so  as  to  prevent  further  violence  to 
the  frame,  and  the  centurion  had  been  prepared,  by  the  solemn 
scene  he  had  witnessed,  for  that  purpose. 

Matt,  xxvii.  59.  "I       "And   when  Joseph   had   taken   the 

John  xix.  39,  40.  J  body,  there  came  also  Nicodemus,  which 
at  the  first  came  to  Jesus  by  night,  and  brought  a  mixture  of 
myrrh  and  aloes,  about  a  hundred  pound  weight." 

It  does  not  appear  that  there  was  or  had  been  before  this 
any  concert  between  these  two  persons.  Had  there  been,  it  is 
presumable  that  both  would  have  gone  to  Pilate  together  and 
joined  in  the  request.  It  appears  too,  that  the  body,  after  it 
had  been  taken  from  the  cross,  was  delivered  to  Joseph,  and 
not  till  then  did  Nicodemus  appear.  This  man  had  early  made 
the  acquaintance  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  even  before  he  entered 


THE    BURIAL   OF   JESUS.  441 

upon  his  public  ministry,  John  iii.  1,  and  was  from  the  begin- 
ning deeply  impressed  with  his  miracles.  He  was  a  Pharisee 
and  a  ruler — or  as  our  Lord  addressed  him,  a  master  of  Israel, 
John  iii.  10 ;  and,  if  we  may  judge  from  the  quantity  of  the 
precious  mixture  he  brought,  was  also  rich.  The  aloes,  we  are 
told,  was  a  production  of  India  and  Arabia,  and  its  odour  very 
pleasant.  It  was  pulverized  and  mixed  with  the  myrrh,  which 
was  a  fluid.  It  had  been  prepared  to  anoint  the  body  of  the 
Lord,  so  as  to  repel  the  attacks  of  worms,  and  to  preserve  it 
against  decomposition.  Three  or  four  pounds  of  the  mixture 
would  have  sufficed  for  this  purpose,  but  Nicodemus,  in  the 
fulness  of  his  affection,  had  prepared  about  a  hundred  pounds' 
weight.  It  is  evident  these  disciples  did  not  know  that  their 
beloved  Lord  was  so  soon  to  rise  from  the  dead.  It  Avas  not 
till  after  the  event  they  understood  these  words  of  the  Psalmist, 
Ps.  xvi.  10,  "Thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in  Hades,  (Sheol,) 
neither  wilt  thou  suffer  thy  Holy  One  to  see  corruption."  Acts 
ii.  27.*  Yet  was  it  a  labour  of  love,  which,  like  Mary's,  John 
xii.  3 — 7,  their  Lord  would  not  suffer  to  pass  without  its  reward. 
Matt.  X.  42. 

John  xix.  40.       \     "Then  they  took  the  body  of  Jesus, 

Matt,  xxvii.  59.  j  and  wrapped  it  in  a  clean  linen  cloth 
with  the  spices,  as  the  manner  of  the  Jews  is  to  bury." 

This  allusion  of  the  Evangelist  John  to  the  Jewish  manner  of 
burial  shows  that  he  wrote  this  Gospel  for  the  use  of  persons 
not  acquainted  with  Jewish  customs.  But  why,  we  mo.y  in- 
quire, did  not  these  rich  men  provide  some  more  precious  mate- 
rial than  linen  to  wrap  the  body  in ;  especially  as  Nicodemus 
had  made  so  costly  a  provision  of  spices?  We  are  told,  and 
this  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  question,  that  it  was  not  lawful 
to  use  a  more  precious  or  costly  material  for  the  purpose  of 
burial  than  linen.  They  might  not  use  silk  or  gorgeous  gar- 
ments for  the  burial  even  of  a  prince. 

As  the  Sabbath  was  near,  it  is  supposed  that  this  whole  pro- 
ceeding was  conducted  in  haste,  and  that  the  body  was  removed 
to  the  sepulchre  immediately  after  it  was  taken  from  the  cross, 
and  after  that  was  wrapped  in  the  linen  with  the  spices.  Luke 
informs  us,  xxiii.  55,  56,  that  the  women  who  followed  him  from 
Galilee  beheld  the  sepulchre,  and  how  his  body  was  laid,  and 
after  that  they  returned  and  prepared  spices  and  ointments  for 
the  same  purpose,  intending  to  use  them  after  the  Sabbath  was 
over.     The  Jewish  method  of  burial  was  a  kind  of  embalming, 

*  The  Hebrew  word  Sheol  signifies  grave.  Gen.  xlii.  38 ;  1  Kings  ii.  6 — 9. 
The  words  mi/  soul  in  the  Hebrew  idiom  signify  me  or  my  person;  so  that  the 
sense  of  the  Psalmist  is,  "  Thou  wilt  not  abandon  ??!e  to  the  grave,"  i.  e.  to  the 
power  of  the  grave,  "that  it  may  detain  me  as  its  own."     See  Byihner's  Lyra. 

56 


442  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

and  similar  to  tlie  Egyptian  method.  The  linen  was  made  into 
strips,  or  bandages,  then  covered  with  myrrh  and  spices,  and 
wound  round  the  body  after  it  had  been  washed.  Herodotus, 
book  ii. ;  Tacitus  Hist,  book  v.  chap.  5.  After  involving  the 
whole  body,  without  eviscerating  it,  in  such  bandages,  it  was 
the  custom  of  the  Jews  to  bind  the  head  about  with  a  napkin, 
as  we  learn  from  the  account  John  gives  of  the  resurrection  of 
Lazarus.     John  xi.  44. 

In  this  manner  these  two  rich  disciples  performed  this  office 
of  affection  to  the  deceased  body  of  their  Master.  The  whole, 
it  is  probable,  was  completed  before  they  departed  from  the 
sepulchre ;  but  the  pious  women  who  remained  only  till  they 
saw  the  body  conveyed  into  the  sepulchre,  made  preparation  to 
perform  the  same  office,  not  knowing  what  Joseph  and  Nicode- 
mus  did  after  they  departed. 

John  xix.  41,  42.  "Now  in  the  place  where  he  was  cruci- 
fied there  was  a  garden,  and  in  the  garden  a  new  sepulchre, 
which  he  [Joseph — Matt,  xxvii.  60]  had  hewn  out  of  a  rock,_ 
wherein  was  never  a  man  yet  laid.  There  laid  they  Jesus 
therefore,  because  of  the  Jews'  preparation  day  [Luke  xxiii.  54,] 
for  that  day  Avas  the  preparation,  and  the  Sabbath  drew  on, 
[John  xix.  42,]  for  the  sepulchre  was  nigh  at  hand." 

The  motive  ascribed  to  these  attached  disciples  for  selecting 
this  place  of  burial  was  its  proximity  to  the  place  of  crucifixion. 
The  Sabbath,  which  would  have  been  violated  by  the  interment 
of  a  dead  body,  was  so  near,  that  no  other  place,  perhaps,  at 
that  late  hour,  could  have  been  provided.  It  seemed  suitable, 
also,  for  the  purpose.  It  was  new,  and  had  never  been  used  as 
a  place  of  interment.  It  belonged  to  Joseph,  and  he  had  the 
right  to  appropriate  it  to  that  use ;  and  although  designed  pro- 
bably for  himself  and  his  family,  he  could  readily  yield  it  up  as 
a  tribute  of  his  affection.  Observe,  too,  that  it  was  a  place  of 
security;  having  been  hewn  from  a  rock,  so  that  the  body  could 
not  have  been  abstracted  from  its  resting-place,  except  through 
the  entrance  or  door.  As  no  dead  body  had  been  deposited 
there  before,  there  coukl  be  no  ground  to  ascribe  the  resurrec- 
tion to  any  other  person ;  nor  could  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  be  ascribed  to  its  contact  Avith  the  bones  of  a 
prophet,  of  which  the  Old  Testament  furnishes  an  example, 
2  Kings  xiii.  21,  in  the  case  of  Elisha.  Thus  while  we  may 
allow  scope  for  the  exercise  of  human  motives,  there  was  an 
overruling  Providence  in  the  selection  of  this  place,  in  order  to 
provide  the  strongest  evidence  possible  of  the  fact  of  the  resur- 
rection of  the  identical  body  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  This  will 
further  appear  by  the  precaution  these  disciples  were  influenced 


THE   BURIAL   OF   JESUS.  443 

to  take  to  secure  the  entrance  into  the  sepulchre,  for  after  de- 
positing the  body  they — 

Matt,  xxvii.  60.  "Rolled  a  great  stone  against  the  door 
of  the  sepulchre,  and  then  departed." 

But  this  was  not  sufficient  to  answer  the  Providential  design; 
for  a  stone,  that  two  men  coiild  roll  to  the  door,  two  other  men 
might  remove  from  its  place.  We  shall  therefore  see  presently 
that  the  enemies  of  the  Lord  were  moved  to  take  the  matter 
into  their  own  hands,  and  not  only  to  seal  the  stone,  but  station 
a  military  guard  to  prevent  its  removal. 

Matt,  xxvii.  61.      "l       "  And  there  was  Mary  Magdalene, 

Mark  XV.  47.  >  and  the  other  Mary,  [called  by  Mark, 

Luke  xxiii.  55,  56.  j  Mary  the  mother  of  Joses,]  sitting  over 
against  the  sepulchre,  and  beheld  where  he  was  laid.  And  the 
women  which  came  with  him  from  Galilee,  beheld  the  sepulchre 
and  how  the  body  was  laid;  and  they  returned  and  prepared 
spices  and  ointments,  and  rested  the  Sabbath  day,  according  to 
the  commandment." 

There  does  not  appear  to  have  been  any  concert  between 
these  women  and  Joseph  and  Nicodemus.  They,  perhaps,  were 
watching  from  a  little  distance,  not  venturing  at  first  to  come 
near.  As  Joseph  and  Nicodemus  were  secret  disciples,  it  is 
quite  possible  the  women  had  no  acquaintance  with  them,  and 
even  did  not  know  their  purpose.  It  is  not  probable  they  re- 
mained as  long  as  the  two  disciples.  For  those  spoken  of  by 
Luke  returned  in  time  to  prepare  spices  and  ointments  before 
sunset,  when  the  Sabbath  commenced,  which  perhaps  they  would 
not  have  done  had  they  known  of  the  large  provision  Nicodemus 
had  made,  and  the  use  he  had  made  of  it.  Neither  did 
Mary  Magdalene  and  Mary  the  mother  of  James  and  Salome 
know  what  Nicodemus  had  done ;  for  they  also  bought  sweet 
spices  and  came  to  the  sepulchre  after  the  Sabbath  to  anoint 
the  body.  Mark  xvi.  1.  Observe,  too,  how  punctually  these 
females  observed  the  law  of  the  Sabbath.  Great  as  their  affec- 
tion was  for  Jesus,  and  Divine  as  they  believed  him  to  be,  they 
did  not  feel  themselves  free  to  perform  this  act  of  affection  as 
an  act  of  necessity  or  mercy  on  the  Sabbath.  How  painfully 
does  the  irreverence  of  many  professed  Christians  contrast  with 
the  conduct  of  these  Jewish  disciples ! 

Matt,  xxvii.  62 — 6Q.  "  Now  the  next  day  that  followed  the 
day  of  the  preparation,  the  chief  priests  and  Pharisees  came 
together  unto  Pilate,  saying,  Sir,  we  remember  that  that  de- 
ceiver said,  while  he  was  yet  alive,  After  three  days  I  will  rise 
again.  Command,  therefore,  that  the  sepulchre  be  made  sure 
until  the  third  day,  lest  his  disciples  come  by  night  and  steal  him 
away,  and  say  unto  the  people,  He  is  risen  from  the  dead:  so 


444  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

the  last  error  shall  be  worse  than  the  first.  Pilate  said  unto 
them,  Ye  have  a  watch :  go  your  way,  make  it  as  sure  as  you 
can.  So  they  went  and  made  the  sepulchre  sure,  sealing  the 
stone,  and  setting  a  watch."* 

These  circumstances  are  recorded  only  by  Matthew.  His 
phraseology  to  denote  the  time  of  the  occurrence  is  peculiar. 
He  does  not  say,  On  the  Sabbath ;  although  that  was  the  day 
which  followed  the  preparation.  Various  conjectures  have  been 
made  to  account  for  the  periphrasis;  the  most  probable  of 
which  is  that  the  Evangelist  chose  to  tax  the  chief  priests  and 
Pharisees  obliquely  or  inferentially,  rather  than  directly  and 
bluntly,  with  a  breach  of  the  Sabbath,  by  the  zeal  they  mani- 
fested in  this  matter.  It  is  not  probable  that  any  considerable 
body  of  persons  waited  upon  Pilate  on  the  Sabbath.  Perhaps 
their  call  was  rather  informal  than  official.  Their  motive  may 
have  been  to  induce  Pilate  to  act  in  the  matter  rather  than 
leave  it  to  them,  as  they  could  not  attend  to  it  without  violating 
their  Sabbath,  by  setting  a  watch  and  making  the  sepulchre 
sure.  However  this  may  be,  the  fact  shows  a  breach  of  their 
own  law  of  the  Sabbath,t  which  they  would  have  censured  in 
any  other  person.  But  their  bitter  enmity  to  the  Lord  Jesus, 
and  their  purpose  to  omit  no  means  of  extirpating  his  influence, 
made  them  disregard  all  other  considerations — whether  divine 
or  human.  If  they  expected,  however,  that  Pilate  would  be 
condescending  enough  to  relieve  them  of  the  care  of  securing 
the  sepulchre,  they  were  disappointed.  His  reply  in  effect  Avas, 
"Why  do  you  trouble  me  with  this  business?  You  have  a  mili- 
tary force  at  your  command.     Do  it  yourselves  in  your  own 

*  MsTst  Tfiii  ijuijiA;  is  the  same  as  h  tx  Tpnn  >)//£/3«  or  Jw  Tpim  >)//f/)a)v.  It  means 
"within  three  days,"  or  "on  the  third  day."  This  sense  the  language  yields, 
and  the  connection  requires.  Msra  is  used  in  this  sense  in  Biblical  Greek, 
Deut.  xxxi.  10.  So  likewise  in  classical  Greek,  //e9'  ifAipAv  (interdiu)  in  the  day- 
time— //e9'  ijuiji^i;  iTrru.,  "within  seven  days."  In  this  sense  the  Jewish  rulers 
understood  the  phrase,  because  they  wished  a  watch  placed  vmncdiatehj,  and  to 
be  continued  "scoc  tdc  Tfim  ti/jLi^^^,"  until  the  third  day.  They  did  not  under- 
stand the  saying  of  Jesus  to  mean,  that  after  three  full  days  (that  is,  on  the 
fourth  day)  he  would  rise,  but  that  he  would  arise  on  the  third  day.  The  pre- 
diction, therefore,  would  be  fulfilled  if  he  rose  at  the  first  moment  of  the  third 
day  from  his  death. 

f  It  should  be  observed,  however,  that  the  66th  verse  may  mean  no  more 
than  that  the  priests  and  Pharisees caiwec?  these  things  to  be  done  by  others; 
not  that  they  did  them  with  their  own  hands.  If  so,  then,  according  to  the 
casuistry  of  the  Rabbins,  it  was  no  breach  of  the  Sabbath — for  Moses  forbade 
only  bodily  labour,  such  as  gathering  wood,  lighting  fires,  &c.  They  might  go, 
therefore,  lawfully  to  Pilate  and  ask  him  to  give  them  a  watch,  and  to  seal  the 
sepulchre;  and -having  received  authority  to  do  so,  even  cause  these  acts  to  be 
done  on  the  Sabbath  by  others,  without  violating  the  fourth  commandment  as 
they  explained  it.  Yet  they  did  not  so  expound  the  law  when  our  Lord  cured 
the  infirm  man  at  the  pool  of  Bethesda.  John  v.  11,  13,  (see  ix.  6,  7,  14,  16;) 
Luke  vi.  7,  11. 


THE    SEPULCHRE   MADE    SURE.  445 

way.  As  for  any  scruples  of  conscience  upon  the  obligation  of 
your  Sabbath,  you  seem  to  have  overcome  them  by  calling  on 
me  for  such  a  purpose.  You  can  attend  to  this  matter  as  con- 
sistently with  your  law  as  you  can  come  to  the  Prretorium  on 
your  Sabbath  to  transact  secular  business  with  me."  Perhaps 
Pilate  remembered  how,  the  day  before,  they  had  refused  to 
come  into  the  Prsetorium  lest  they  should  be  defiled. 

It  appears  also  by  this  passage,  not  only  that  our  Lord  had 
predicted  his  resurrection  after  three  days,  but  that  the  priests 
were  fully  aware  of  the  fact.  Yet  it  appears  by  other  places, 
that  even  his  disciples  did  not  really  expect  that  he  would  rise 
from  the  dead,  and  were,  in  fact,  as  skeptical  in  this  matter  as 
the  priests.  Indeed,  the  preparation  of  the  myrrh,  aloes,  spices, 
and  ointments,  of  the  linen,  and  the  manner  in  which  the  body 
was  wrapped  up,  all  indicate  the  full  persuasion  of  a  long  con- 
tinuance in  the  grave.  "They  believed  not,"  as  Lightfoot  re- 
marks, "that  he  should  die,  till  he  was  dead;  nor  believed  that 
he  should  rise  again,  no,  not  when  he  was  already  arisen." 

Matt,  xxvii.  6i3.  "  So  they  went  and  made  the  sepulchre 
sure,  sealing  the  stone  and  setting  a  Avatch." 

This  precaution  was  of  a  nature  not  to  be  postponed,  accord- 
ing to  their  view  of  the  case.  Of  course,  they  did  these  things 
on  their  Sabbath,  but  whether  after  sunset  on  Friday,  or  on  the 
morning  of  Saturday,  according  to  our  mode  of  reckoning,  we 
are  not  expressly  informed.  The  watch  they  set  was  taken 
from  the  soldiers  attached  to  the  temple  who  were  subject  to 
the  orders  of  the  priests.  Some  have  supposed  that  the  stone 
was  sealed  with  Pilate's  signet;  but  this  is  not  recorded,  Y'et 
whether  so  or  not,  the  end  of  Divine  Providence  was  secured, 
by  providing  such  means  to  secure  the  body  of  our  blessed 
Lord  within  the  sepulchre,  as  could  not  be  eluded  or  overcome. 
Thus  the  evidence  of  his  resurrection  by  Divine  power  Avas 
placed  beyond  all  question  or  doubt,  and  an  argument  was 
put  into  the  mouth  of  his  followers  which  could  not  be  gain- 
said or  resisted. 

It  was  probably  the  intention  of  the  priests  and  rulers  to 
remove  the  body  from  the  sepulchre  after  three  days,  and  pub- 
licly expose  it  to  the  gaze  of  the  people,  so  that  by  the  antici- 
pated failure  of  this  prediction,  his  credit  with  them  would  be 
destroyed.  Undoubtedly,  if  the  prediction  had  been  falsified 
by  the  event,  they  would  have  done  so.  Their  difficulty  in  that 
case  Avould  have  been  to  prove  the  prediction,  for  he  made  it 
plainly  to  none  but  to  his  disciples  in  private,  and  only  obscurely 
to  others  in  public,  to  the  people.  Markviii.  31;  xiv.  58;  Matt, 
xvi,  21;  John  ii.  19;  Matt.  xii.  40.  How  the  priests  came 
to   understand  his  public  allusions  so  well,  we  can  only  con- 


446  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 

jecture.  Perhaps  their  intercourse  with  the  traitor  Judas  was 
the  source  of  their  knowledge.  However  this  may  be,  the 
result  was,  our  Lord's  body  was  kept  safely  in  the  sepulchre  of 
Joseph  under  the  threefold  guard  of  the  stone,  the  seal,  and  the 
watch. 


CHAPTER   XII. 

THE   RESURRECTION. 

A  harmony  of  the  chapters  to  be  considered. — The  whole  doctrine  of  the  glorified 
Church  inseparably  connected  with  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  resurrection. — 
The  Marys  at  the  sepulchre. — Intercourse  between  angels,  the  Saviour,  and 
his  disciples — Ministry  of  angels  in  the  present  dispensation. — Spiritual 
natures. — Mary's  recognition  of  her  Lord  through  his  power  over  her  mind 
and  spirit. — Christ's  prohibition  of  Mary's  touch  explained. — Jesus  in  his 
future  interviews  with  his  disciples  no  longer  to  be  considered  as  an  inhabi- 
tant of  the  earth. — Christ's  risen  body  not  confined  to  the  earth  during  the 
forty  days. — Inadequate  conception  of  the  attributes  with  which  our  Lord 
investe<l  his  risen  human  body. — The  Sanhedrim  convened. — Malicious  inge- 
nuity of  its  members. — The  belief  of  the  report  of  the  theft  of  the  body  of  Jesus 
confined  to  the  Jews. — Pains  taken  by  them  to  circulate  and  perpetuate  it. 

We  interrupt  our  Notes  for  the  purpose  of  introducing  a  short 
harmony  of  the  chapters  upon  which  we  are  now  to  enter. 
There  is  considerable  difficulty  in  determining  with  certainty 
the  order  in  which  the  various  events  recorded  occurred.  The 
difficulty  arises  chiefly  from  the  fact  that  each  Evangelist  omits  to 
state  the  minor  circumstances  of  the  events  which  he  narrates, 
and  especially  to  record  with  particularity  the  times  at  which 
they  occurred.  It  is  not  difficult,  however,  to  show  that  the 
Evangelists  do  not  contradict  each  other.  Each  account,  we 
hold  and  firmly  believe,  is  literally  and  exactly  true,  and  all  of 
them  perfectly  consistent  with  each  other,  as  the  following 
outline  and  notes,  we  trust,  Avill  show: 

1.  Matt,  xxviil  1;  Mark  xvi.  1;  Luke  xxiv.  1. — Soon 
after  the  end  of  the  Sabbath,  but  the  hour  of  the  night  pre- 
cisely we  cannot  tell,  the  women  whom  the  Evangelists  men- 
tioned in  the  preceding  chapters,  and  some  others  with  them, 
made  themselves  ready  to  go  early  in  the  morning  to  the  sepul- 
chre, taking  with  them  the  spices  they  had  prepared  to  anoint 
the  Lord's  body.  Whether  they  all  intended  to  set  forth  from 
the  same  place,  or  from  different  places,  and  from  what  places, 
we  are  not  informed.  It  is  probable  they  went  from  different 
places,  situated  at  unequal  tlistances,  and  did  not  all  set  forth 


HARMONY   OF   CHAPTERS.  447 

at  precisely  the  same  moment  of  time,  or  go  with  exactly  the 
same  speed. 

2.  Matt,  xxvni.  2 — 4. — But  before  any  of  the  women 
arrived  at  the  sepulchre,  and  sometime  before  the  dawn  of  the 
day,  there  was  an  earthquake.  At  or  about  the  same  time  an 
angel  descended,  and  rolled  away  the  stone  from  the  sepulchre, 
and  seated  himself  upon  it.  The  watch  were  affrighted,  and 
fled  from  the  place,  and  the  angel  disappeared. 

3.  Matt,  xxviii.  1 ;  Mark  xvi.  1. — After  this  event,  some 
of  the  women  arrived.  Mary  Magdalen,  Mary  the  mother  of 
James  and  Joses,  certainly ;  and  perhaps  Salome  also :  but  if 
the  latter  did  not  accompany  the  two  Marys,  she  was  not  long 
behind  them. 

4.  Matt,  xxviii.  1;  Mark  xvi.  2;  John  xx.  1. — It  was 
very  early,  yet  dark,  when  they  first  came  to  the  sepulchre. 
On  their  way  they  talked  about  the  stone  which  they  saw 
Joseph  and  Nicodemus  place  before  the  door  of  the  sepulchre, 
and  were  troubled  about  it.  But  as  they  came  up  to  the  place, 
they  discovered  with  astonishment  that  it  had  been  already 
removed. 

5.  John  xx.  1,  2. — Mary  Magdalen,  seeing  the  sepulchre 
open,  and  the  stone  removed  to  a  distance,  concluded  at  once 
that  the  body  of  the  Lord  had  been  taken  out  of  it,  and  carried 
away.  Without  stopping  to  investigate  the  fact,  she  imme- 
diately left  her  companions,  and  ran  to  tell  Peter  and  John.- 

6.  Mark  xvi.  5. — Mary  Magdalen  having  thus  departed,  the 
other  Mary,  with  Salome  (who  either  came  with  the  two  Marys, 
or  arrived,  it  is  probable,  soon  after)  entered  the  sepulchre, 
and,  while  within  it,  saw  an  angel,  who  told  them  that  the  Lord 
had  risen,  and  gave  them  a  message  to  the  disciples. 

7.  Matt,  xxviii.  8  ;  Mark  xvi.  8. — Affrighted  at  the  sight 
of* the  angel,  they  quickly  left  the  sepulchre  and  fled — not 
daring  even  to  speak,  so  great  was  their  fear. 

8.  Luke  xxiv.  2 — 9.  Soon  after,  another  and  probably  a 
larger  company  of  women  arrived  at  the  sepulchre,  not  having 
met  Mary  the  mother  of  James,  and  Salome,  who  but  a  short 
time  before  had  fled  from  it.  As  they  also  found  the  stone 
rolled  way,  they  entered.  They  saw  that  the  body  of  Jesus 
was  not  there.     Perhaps  they  noticed  the  linen  clothes  lying 


448  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

and  the  napkin.  But  this  is  not  said.  Being  perplexed,  and 
unable  to  account  for  what  they  saw,  two  angels,  in  the. form 
of  men,  appeared  standing  with  them.  The  angels,  or  one  of 
them,  announced  the  fact  of  the  Lord's  resurrection,  as  the 
same  or  another  angel  had  to  the  other  company,  but  gave  them 
no  message.  These  women  then  left  the  sepulchre  with  the 
purpose  to  go  to  the  apostles,  and  tell  them  what  they  had  seen 
and  heard. 

9.  John  xx.  3 — 10. — Soon  after  this  John  arrived,  and  then 
Peter ;  and  soon  after  Peter,  Mary  Magdalen,  who,  some  time 
before,  had  gone  in  search  of  them.  John  coming  up  first, 
stooped  down  and  looked  into  the  sepulchre;  whence  we  con- 
clude the  morning  had  so  far  advanced  that  there  was  light 
enough  to  see  clearly.  While  in  this  posture,  perhaps,  Peter 
came  up;  and  without  pausing  long,  if  at  all,  he  "v^ent  in. 
John,  emboldened  by  Peter's  example,  followed.  They  saw 
nothing  but  the  linen  clothes  lying  and  the  napkin.  The  body 
they  found  not.  No  angel  appeared  to  them  to  explain  the 
wonder.  Having  verified  Mary's  words,  and  seen  what  they 
could,  they  returned  to  their  homes. 

10.  John  xx.  11 — 13. — But  Mary  Magdalen  lingered  still  at 
the  sepulchre,  with  no  other  object,  as  we  can  perceive,  but  to 
vent  her  sorrow.  Whether  Peter  or  John  had  told  her  what 
they  had  seen  within  the  sepulchre,  we  are  not  informed ;  but 
whether  or  not,  she  stooped  down,  looked  in,  and  saw  two 
angels  sitting,  the  one  at  the  head,  the  other  at  the  foot  of  the 
place  where  the  body  of  Jesus  had  lain.  Immediately  they,  or 
one  of  them,  addressed  her,  "Woman,  why  weepest  thou?" 
This  question  she  answered  without  fear,  supposing,  no  doubt, 
that  they  were  men. 

11.  Mark  xvi.  9 ;  John  xx.  14. — On  perceiving  these  per- 
sons within  the  sepulchre,  she  naturally  turned  away  from  it, 
and,  in  doing  so,  perceived  obliquely  behind  her  another  per- 
son, whom  she  took  to  be  the  gardener.  It  was,  in  fact,  Jesus 
himself.  This  was  the  first  appearance  of  the  Lord  after* his 
resurrection  to  any  of  his  disciples. 

12.  John  xx.  15 — 17. — Jesus  put  to  her  the  same  question 
the  angels  had,  and  also  another.  Her  reply  shows  how  entirely 
unconscious  she  was  of  his  presence;  but  upon  his  pronouncing 
her  name,  instantly  she  recognized  him.  He  gave  her  a  mes- 
sage to  his  brethren,  and  disappeared. 


HARMONY   OP   CHAPTERS.  449 

13.  JoHNXX.  18. — Mary  having  thus  seen  the  Lord,  has- 
tened from  the  sepulchre,  not  sorrowful  as  before,  but  with 
intense  joj,  to  tell  the  disciples  what  she  had  seen.  Probably 
she  ran  to  find  Peter  and  John  first,  to  correct  the  false  impres- 
sion she  had  given  them,  and  which  their  own  observation  had 
confirmed.  These  apostles  had  not  long  before  left  the  place, 
and  perhaps  had  not  yet  reached  their  homes,  when  Mary 
departed  the  second  time  to  find  them.  As  she  met  others 
afterAvards,  she  no  doubt  delivered  to  them  the  joyful  message. 

14.  Luke  xxiv.  10. — Li  the  mean  time  the  second  party  of 
women,  of  whom  Luke  speaks,  were  on  their  way  to  find  the 
apostles,  and  tell  them  what  they  had  seen.  But  Mary  had 
found  Peter  and  John,  and  perhaps  some  other  of  the  disciples 
or  apostles,  before  tbey  returned,  and,  as  Luke  himself  inti- 
mates, had  anticipated  their  information. 

15.  Matt,  xxviir.  8,  11.— Not  long  after  this  the  first  party 
of  women,  consisting  of  Mary  the  mother  of  James  and  Joses, 
Salome,  and  perhaps  some  others,  returned  and  found  the  dis- 
ciples. Their  fear,  it  is  probable,  had  kept  them  back,  till 
Jesus  met  them  and  composed  their  minds. 

16.  Luke  xxiv.  11. — Notwithstanding  these  reiterated  assur- 
ances of  the  women,  the  apostles  were  incredulous — in  fact  th^  ' 
regarded  their  reports  as  idle  tales. 

17.  Luke  xxiv.  12 — 34. — But  Peter,  on  hearing  this  second 
account  of  Mary  Magdalen,  arose  hastily  and  ran  the  second 
time  to  the  sepulchre,  and  stooping  down  saw  the  linen  clothes 
lying  by  themselves,  as  he  had  seen  them  before,  but  did  not 
enter  the  sepulchre  again.  Perhaps  he  hoped  the  Lord  would 
appear  to  him,  as  he  had  to  Mary.  Some  suppose  that  on  this 
second  visit,  either  at  the  sepulchre  or  on  his  way  returning 
from  it,  the  Lord  did  appear  to  Peter;  but  this  particular  is 
not  recorded.  All  we  know  is,  that  at  some  time  before  even- 
ing, and  long  enough  before,  to  make  the  fact  known  among  the 
disciples,  the  Lord  did  actually  appear  to  Peter,  and  on  his 
assurance  the  other  apostles  appear  to  have  believed  the  fact. 
1  Cor.  XV.  5. 

18.  Matt,  xxviii.  11,  15.— About  the  time  the  first  party 
of  women  returned  to  the  city  and  found  the  apostles,  the  watch 
who  had  been  set  to  guard  the  sepulchre  also  came  into  the  city 
and  informed  the  chief  priests  of  the  wonderful  things  they  had 


450  NOTES  ON   SCRIPTURE. 

witnessed,  and  how  they  were  frightened  from  the  place  by  the 
appearance  of  an  angel. 

19.  Luke  xxiv.  13,  30,  31.  —  After  the  return  of  the 
second  and  larger  party  of  women  to  the  city — perhaps  about 
mid-day  or  a  little  before,  Cleopas,  supposed  to  be  the  same  as 
Alpheus,  and  another  disciple,  whose  name  we  do  not  know,  set 
out  from  Jerusalem  to  go  to  Emmaus,  a  village  about  seven  and 
a  half  or  eight  miles  north-west  from  Jerusalem.  When  they 
set  forth  these  disciples  had  heard  only  the  report  of  the  second 
party  of  women  (verse  22,)  who  spoke  merely  of  having  seen  a 
vision  of  angels.  While  on  their  way  to  Emmaus,  Jesus  joined 
them  in  the  guise  of  a  traveller.  They  did  not,  like  Mary 
Magdalen,  at  first  recognize  him;  but  at  Emmaus,  while  re- 
clining with  them  at  meat,  he  made  himself  known  and  immedi- 
ately disappeared.  Allowing  three  hours  for  the  walk  to  Em- 
maus, we  may  conjecture  that  this  occurred  between  3  o'clock 
and  4  o'clock,  p.  M,,  according  to  our  mode  of  reckoning  time. 
This  was  the  Lord's  fourth  appearance  on  that  day,  if  we 
assume  that  he  had  before  this  time  appeared  to  Peter.  See 
verse  34. 

20.  Mark  xvi.  14;  Luke  xxiv.  33;  John  xx.  19. — Cleopas 
and  his  companion  did  not  remain  long  at  Emmaus,  whatever 
their  intention  was  before.  Rising  the  same  hour — that  is  with 
alT  convenient  speed — they  hastened  back  to  the  city,  to  tell 
their  brethren  of  this  wonderful  interview.  They  found  the 
apostles,  or  most  of  them,  assembled,  but  in  a  state  of  excite- 
ment: for,  before  this,  the  apostles  had  heard  of  the  Lord's 
appearance  to  Simon,  and  that  was  the  topic  which  engrossed 
them,  when  Cleopas  and  his  companion  entered  the  room  where 
they  were  assembled.  According  to  John,  the  time  of  this 
meeting  was  evening,  though  still  on  the  first  day  of  the  week. 
Mark  represents  the  company  as  still  reclining  at  table.  Hence 
we  infer  that  it  was  the  time  of  their  evening  repast.  As  the 
sun  set  at  that  season  near  six  o'clock,  we  may  conjecture  that 
Cleopas  and  his  companion  joined  the  company  about  that  time, 
or  a  little  after:  for  the  company  may  have  assembled  some 
short  time  before  Cleopas  entered.  It  is  probable  Peter  was 
not  there,  and  quite  certain  that  Thomas  was  not. 

21.  Luke  xxiv.  36. — While  Cleopas  and  his  companion  were 
relating  what  they  had  seen  and  'heard,  Jesus  himself  appeared 
in  the  midst  of  them.  The  whole  company  were  terrified  and 
afi'righted,  supposing  they  saw  a  spirit.  Cleopas  and  his  com- 
panion, for  aught  that  is  said,  shared  in  the  fright  and  misap- 


HARMONY   OF   CHAPTERS.  451 

prehension.  "  Yet,  as  the  remark  is  general,  perhaps  it  was 
intended  to  be  applied  only  to  those  of  the  company  who  had 
not  seen  him  before. 

22.  Luke  xxiv.  38 — 40;  John  xx.  20. — Immediately  the 
Lord  allayed  their  fears.  He  knew  their  thoughts,  and  con- 
vinced them  of  the  reality  of  his  person  and  presence,  by  exhibit- 
ing his  hands  and  feet  to  their  sight  and  touch.  Yet  even  after 
that  exhibition  and  proof,  they  believed  not  for  joy.  The  won- 
der was  too  great  to  believed. 

23.  Mark  xvi.  14;  Luke  xxiv.  44 — 49. — Jesus,  therefore, 
resorted  to  another  proof.  He  called  for  meat.  Accordingly 
one  at  the  table  handed  him  a  piece  of  broiled  fish,  and  (another, 
perhaps)  a  piece  of  honeycomb,  which  he  took  and  ate  before 
them.  This  proof,  it  appears,  convinced  them ;  for  immediately 
Jesus  began  to  instruct  them,  and  open  their  minds  for  the  ap- 
prehension of  the  truths  he  communicated.  This  was  the  fifth 
appearance  of  the  Lord  on  that  day ;  but  before  this  time  he 
had  not  appeared  to  the  apostles  collectively. 

24.  Luke  xxiv.  50,  51 ;  John  xx.  21,  28. — How  long  this 
interview  continued,  we  are  not  informed.  If  we  may  judge 
from  the  number  and  importance  of  the  topics  he  touched  upon, 
it  was  not  very  brief.  It  must  have  reminded  them  of  their 
interview  with  him  on  the  Thursday  evening  before.  When  his 
discourse  was  concluded,  it  appears  they  all  left  the  apartment 
where  they  had  assembled,  and  Jesus  led  them  as  far  as  Bethany, 
about  fifteen  furlongs,  or  nearly  two  miles  from  Jerusalem,  and 
having  blessed  them,  he  was  parted  from  them,  and  Avas  carried 
up  into  heaven.  This  occurred  in  the  night  of  the  Lord's  day, 
at  what  hour  of  night  we  know  not.  His  last  ascension,  forty 
days  afterwards,  was  from  Mount  Olivet,  which  was  only  five 
furlongs  distant  from  Jerusalem,  or  one-third  of  the  distance  of 
Bethany.     Acts  i.  12 ;  John  xi.  18. 

25.  John  xx.  26,  29. — Eight  days  after,  that  is  on  the  Sun- 
day following,  the  disciples  met  again,  and  Thomas  was  with 
them.  Jesus  appeared  to  them  again,  much  in  the  manner  he 
had  before.  On  this  occasion  he  exhibited  his  hands  and  side 
to  Thomas,  which  effectually  removed  his  incredulity.  The 
Evangelist  records  nothing  more  of  this  interview  than  what 
passed  between  the  Lord  Jesus  and  Thomas;  nor  does  he  inform 
us  when,  where,  or  how  he  disappeared. 

26.  Matt,  xxviii.  16.— The  feast  of  the  Passover  by  this 


452  NOTES  ON   SCKIPTURE. 

time  having  ended,  and  the  women  having  conveyed  to  the  dis- 
ciples generally  the  message  which  the  angels  and  Jesus  also 
had  sent  to  them,  and  the  fact  of  his  resurrection  having  heen 
proved  by  the  positive  testimony  of  at  least  sixteen  of  their 
number  who  had  seen  him,  the  disciples  generally,  and  several 
of  the  apostles  returned  to  Galilee  to  await  the  fulfilment  of 
his  promise  to  appear  to  all  of  them  there.  Matt,  xxviii.  16,  7; 
Mark  xvi.  7. 

27.  John  xxi.  1. — Some  of  the  apostles,  however,  lingered 
behind,  among  whom  was  Peter.  At  his  suggestion,  Thomas, 
Nathaniel,  James,  and  John,  and  two  other  disciples  went  a  fish- 
ing to  the  Sea  of  Tiberias.  On  this  occasion  Jesus  appeared 
to  them  again.  He  spoke  to  them  all,  and  conversed  with  Peter 
in  the  hearing  of  the  others.  This  was  his  seventh  appearance, 
but  the  fourth  only  of  those  which  John  particularly  records. 
The  time  of  it  we  have  no  means  of  determining. 

28.  Matt,  xxviii.  16. — His  next  appearance  was  the  pro- 
mised one  in  Galilee,  upon  a  mountain,  in  the  presence  of  the 
eleven  apostles  and  of  more  than  five  hundred  of  his  disciples. 
On  this  occasion  also  he  instructed  them  in  the  nature  and  ob- 
jects of  their  mission. 

29.  After  this  he  appeared  the  ninth  time,  to  James,  as  Paul 
informs  us  in  1  Cor.  xv.  7,  but  the  Evangelists  do  not  mention 
this  appearance. 

30.  The  only  other  appearance  which  is  particularly  men- 
tioned, was  to  the  eleven  apostles  near  Jerusalem,  immediately 
before  his  visible  ascension  to  heaven,  from  Mount  Olivet.  This 
occurred  on  the  fortieth  day  after  his  resurrection.  Acts  i.  1 — 9. 

Of  these  appearances  Paul  mentions  five,  in  1  Cor.  xv.  5 — 7, 
viz.  1,  that  to  Peter;  2,  to  the  twelve;  3,  to  the  five  hundred; 
4,  to  James ;  5,  to  all  the  apostles.  He  omits  the  appearances — 
1,  to  Mary  Magdalen;  2,  to  the  women  returning  from  the 
sepulchre;  3,  to  Cleopas  and  his  companion;  4,  to  all  the 
apostles,  or  at  least  to  nine  of  them,  on  the  evening  of  the  day 
of  his  resurrection,  when  Thomas  was  absent ;  5,  to  seven  of 
the  apostles  at  the  sea  of  Tiberias.  It  is  only  by  collating  the 
Evangelists  and  the  apostle  Paul  that  we  make  out  the  number 
ten;  yet  some  commentators  have  supposed  that  he  appeared 
at  many  other  times,  of  which  we  have  no  account.  But  the 
manner  in  which  Paul  alludes  to  the  subject  inclines  us  to 
doubt  this  opinion. 


RESURRECTION    OF   CHRIST.  453 

We .  now  resume  our  annotations  according  to  the  order  of 
the  foregoing  summary. 


THE    RESURRECTION   OF   THE    LORD   JESUS. 

"VYe  have  seen  that  after  Pihate  had  judicially  ascertained, 
through  the  centurion,  the  death  of  Jesus,  he  freely  granted 
his  dead  body  to  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  and  gave  orders  to 
deliver  it  to  him.  In  all  this  Pilate  acted  officially,  as  the 
Governor  and  Chief  Justiciary  of  Judea.  The  time  at  Avhich 
Joseph  made  his  request  to  Pilate,  we  have  supposed,  was  soon 
after  three  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  of  Friday.  Matthew 
indeed  says  it  was  at  evening  [otptac,  ds  ysuo/usyr^;; — xxvii.  57;) 
but  the  Jews  were  accustomed  to  call  the  whole  of  the  afternoon 
until  sunset,  {d</'(a)  evening.  As  the  Sabbath  commenced  at 
sunset,  we  infer  that  Joseph  had  received  the  body  and  de- 
posited it  in  his  own  tomb  before  that  time ;  for  it  was  neces- 
sary, in  order  to  fulfil  our  Lord's  own  words,  Matt.  xii.  40, 
that  his  body  should  lie  within  the  grave  at  least  some  portion 
of  three  days,  according  to  the  Jewish  reckoning.  Besides,  the 
strictness  and  reverence  with  which  the  pious  Jews  observed 
the  Sabbath,  Luke  xxiii.  56,  justifies  the  inference  that  Joseph 
and  Nicodemus  completed  their  labour  of  love  before  the  Sab- 
bath began. 

We  have  seen  also  how  these  pious  disciples  secured  the 
body  in  its  resting-place,  and  what  measures  the  chief  priests 
and  Pharisees,  with  the  approbation  of  Pilate,  adopted  on  the 
next  day  to  prevent  the  removal  of  the  body  covertly  or  by 
any  fraudulent  means.  Thus  secured,  the  body  remained  as 
it  was  laid,  cold  and  motionless,  during  a  part  of  Friday  after- 
noon, the  whole  of  Friday  night,  the  whole  of  Saturday,  or  the 
Jewish  Sabbath,  and  some  part  of  Saturday  night,  with  which 
the  first  day  of  the  ensuing  week  began.  At  some  time  in  the 
night,  and  as  some  suppose — though  without  the  express 
warrant  of  the  Scriptures — soon  after  midnight,  the  human 
soul  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  in  union  with  his  Divine  nature, 
returned  from  Paradise,  entered  the  tomb,  took  possession  of 
the  body  it  had  so  lately  left  on  the  cross,  reanimated  it,  and 
came  forth.  No  human  eye,  as  we  suppose,  witnessed  this 
event.  It  was  first  announced  some  time,  perhaps  some  hours, 
afterwards,  by  angels,  whose  words  were  verified  at  the  moment 
by  the  opened  and  empty  sepulchre.  Before  we  proceed  with 
the  Evangelists,  it  may  be  useful  to  dwell  a  little  on  this  won- 
derful event,  which  must  be  acknowledged  by  all  Christians  as 
absolutely  fundamental.      The  apostle  Paul  makes  the   whole 


454  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

truth  of  tlie  gospel,  and  the  very  salvation  of  the  elect,  depend 
upon  the  truth  and  reality  of  the  fact.  He  says:  "If  Christ 
be  not  risen,  our  preaching  is  (xsvov)  vain,  and  your  faith  is 
is  {xz^rj)  vain."  1  Cor.  xv.  14.  Again:  "If  Christ  be  not 
raised,  your  faith  is  [not  simply  xtvTj,  enifty,  but  ptaraca,  foolish, 
as  well  as  empty  or  groundless]  vain.  Ye  are  yet  in  your 
sins,"  verse  17.  Nor  is  there  any  hope  of  the  resurrection  of 
others.  For  if  Christ,  the  head,  be  not  risen  from  the  dead, 
how  can  believers  in  him,  the  members  of  his  body,  be  raised 
from  the  dead?  The  dead  in  Christ  are  perished,  verse  18, 
not  merely  fallen  asleep,  if  Christ  be  not  raised. 

This  doctrine,  then,  is  equal  in  importance  to  any  other  in 
the  Scriptures.  It  is,  indeed,  essentially  connected  with  the 
doctrine  of  our  Lord's  Divine  nature,  and  is,  in  fact,  proved  by 
it.  For  if  we  believe  that  the  Son  of  God,  the  second  person 
of  the  Trinity,  became  incarnate  in  the  person  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  so  that  he  was  truly  God  and  truly  man  in  one  person, 
nothing  can  be  more  reasonable  than  the  doctrine  of  his  resur- 
rection. The  greater  wonder,  by  far,  is  that  the  Son  of  God 
should  take  upon  himself  the  nature  of  man  at  all,  and  espe- 
cially that  he  might  die.  See  Acts  ii.  24.  It  is  only  when  we 
call  in  question,  or  lose  sight  of  his  Divine  nature,  as  Socinians 
and  Unitarians  do,  that  the  fact  of  his  resurrection  seems  to 
require  proof.  To  this  consideration  we  add,  that  the  doctrine 
is  absolutely  essential  to  the  consistency  and  the  truth  of  the 
other  Scriptures.  Our  Lord  himself  declared  that  "  As  the 
Father  hath  life  in  himself,  even  so  he  hath  given  to  the  Son  to 
have  life  in  himself."  John  v.  26.  He  declared  also  that 
*'he  had  power  to  lay  down  his  life,  and  power  to  take  it  again." 
John  X.  18.  We  have  seen  how  he  fulfilled  one  part  of  this 
declaration  by  delivering  up  his  spirit  at  the  appointed  moment, 
and  committing  it  as  a  trust  into  the  hands  of  the  Father.  His 
spiritual  nature  went  forth  from  his  body,  as  Ave  might  go  forth 
from  a  house  or  tent.  The  other  part  he  fulfilled  in  the  same 
way.  As  he  was  perfectly  voluntary  in  becoming  incarnate  at 
first,  so  now,  by  an  act  of  his  own,  he  became  incarnate  the 
second  time  in  the  dead  body  he  had  shortly  before  left,  as  it 
lay  embalmed  in  the  sepulchre  of  Joseph,  and  quickened  it  into 
new  and  immortal  life.  By  this  act  he  constituted  himself  the 
second  Adam,  the  head  of  the  new  creation,  and  especially  of 
all  his  redeemed.  Widely  different  were  the  objects,  separately 
considered,  of  the  first  and  second  incarnations  of  the  Son  of 
God.  His,  first  incarnation  was  in  order  that  he  might  offer  the 
body  he  had  assumed  on  the  cross,  that  thereby  he  might  put 
away  sin,  destroy  the  dominion  of  Satan,  deliver  the  creature 
(that  is,  the  world  itself)  from  the  bondage  of  corruption,  re- 


RESURRECTION   OF   CHRIST.  455 

deem  and  glovify  his  elect  Church,  and  through  it  make  known 
in  all  worlds,  and  to  all  orders  of  creatures,  the  manifold  wis- 
dom of  God.  His  second  incarnation  was  the  inauguration  of 
his  work  of  new  creation.  It  was  then  that  he  cast  off  the  image 
of  sinful  flesh,  Rom.  viii.  3,  or  rather  (shall  w^e  say?)  moulded 
that  image  into  a  new  form,  which,  instead  of  being  a  copy  from 
any  other,  is  to  be  the  pattern  of  the  bodies  of  his  elect,  the 
Church  of  the  first-born,  his  brethren.     Rom.  viii.  29. 

This  headship  of  Christ,  as  the  second  Adam,  is  the  crowning 
blessing  of  God's  covenant  with  David.  Hence  the  apostle 
Paul,  referring  to  2  Sam.  vii.  19,  and  1  Chron.  xvii.  17,  calls 
him,  by  way  of  contrast  to  the  head  of  our  fallen  race,  the 
second  Adam,  the  Lord  from  heaven.  1  Cor.  xv.  45.* 

In  this  connection  it  is  proper  to  refer  to  Heb.  x.  5,  where 
the  same  apostle,  quoting  Ps.  xl.  6,  ascribes  to  the  Saviour  the 
words,  "A  body  hast  thou  prepared  me."  These  words,  no 
doubt,  had  begun  to  be  fulfilled  when  he  was  born  into  the 
world,  and  were  fulfilling  while  he  increased  in  stature  from 
infancy  to  manhood.  The  use  the  apostle  makes  of  them, 
shows  that  their  primary  reference  is  to  the  priestly  office  and 
sacrificial  work  of  Christ.  But  may  they  not  also  refer  to  that 
adult  frame,  perfect  without  a  blemish  or  the  fracture  of  a 
bone,  which,  after  having  been  suspended  on  the  cross  as  a  sac- 
rifice, was  laid,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the  sepulchre  ?  If  we  may 
so  consider  them,  they  will  remind  us  of  the  body  prepared  for 
the  first  Adam,  out  of  the  dust  of  the  earth,  in  its  full  and 
perfect  measure  and  stature.  We  conceive  of  it  as  a  most 
exquisite  workmanship,  but  without  intelligence  or  life,  or  more 
inherent  power  to  move  than  the  mould  from  which  it  had  been 
made.     Just  so,  lay  the  body  of  the  second  Adam  in  the  tomb, 

*  Dr.  Kennicott  renders  1  Chron.  xvii.  17  thus:  "And  thou  hast  regarded 
me  (David)  according  to  the  order  of  the  Adam  that  is  future,  or  the  man  that 
is  from  above,"  [for  the  word  nb5'>2n  ^^^7  remarkably  signifies  hereafter  in 
respect  of  time,  and  from  above  in  respect  of  place.]  Hence  St.  Paul,  com- 
bining both  senses,  says  the  second  man  is  the  Lord  from  heaven.  1  Cor.  xv. 
45.  "  Adam  is  the  figure  of  him  that  was  to  come."  (tou  /ufKKovrog — Rom.  v. 
14;  rather  say,  of  the  coming  one,  tow  ip^c/utvou,  that  is,  the  future  Adam.) 

Bishop  Horsley  renders  the  verse  thus:  "And  thou  hast  regarded  me 
(David)  in  the  ari-angement  about  the  man  that  is  to  be  from  above,"  &c. — 
that  is,  in  foi-ming  the  scheme  of  incarnation,  regard  was  had  to  the  honour  of 
David  and  his  house,  as  a  secondary  object,  by  making  it  a  part  of  the  plan 
that  Messiah  should  be  born  in  his  family.  The  sense  of  2  Sam.  vii.  19  is  the 
same,  though  the  phraseology  differs  somewhat.  This  remark  of  Bishop 
Horsley  was  intended  to  apply  to  the  incarnation  of  Messiah  in  the  womb  of 
the  virgin.  The  second  incarnation,  in  the  sepulchre  of  Joseph,  had  respect 
to  much  higher  objects  than  the  honour  of  David,  if  the  observations  before 
made  upon  John  xix.  26,  27,  are  well  founded.  See  vol.  ix.  645,  046.  The 
view  here  taken  of  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord,  it  is  submitted,  confirms  the 
view  taken  of  the  passage  in  John  xix.  last  cited. 


456  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

perfectly  formed  and  prepared,  though  by  the  process  of  natu- 
ral growth,  ready  to  be  occupied  by  the  spiritual  and  Divine 
nature  of  Jehovah  Jesus.  It  was  the  same  great  Being  who 
gave  animation  and  life  to  both  these  bodies,  but  in  different 
degrees  and  for  vastly  different  ends.  To  the  full-formed  body 
of  the  first  Adam  the  Lord  Christ,  as  Creator,  imparted  the 
breath  of  life,  and  made  him  a  living  soul.  Gen.  ii.  7 ;  1  Cor. 
XV.  45.  The  other  body  he  himself,  as  the  creative,  quickening 
spirit,  entered  and  occupied,  that  through  it  and  the  Church, 
which  is  his  mystical  body,  he  might  for  ever  make  manifest  to 
his  intelligent  creatures  the  Divine  nature  and  glory. 

But  not  to  insist  on  these  passages,  which  are  adverted  to  in 
this  place  rather  for  the  analogies  they  suggest  than  as  the 
most  obvious  proofs  of  our  proposition,  it  is  sufficient  to  say, 
that  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  glorified  Church  is  inseparably 
connected  with  our  Lord's  resurrection.  See  Col.  iii.  3.  With- 
out it  the  gospel  is  an  idle  tale,  and  the  preachers  of  it  false 
witnesses  before  God. 

The  resurrection  of  Christ,  which  we  proceed  now  to  consider, 
is  a  question  of  fact,  to  be  decided  by  testimony,  and  so  the 
Scriptures  represent  it.  Acts  i.  22;  ii.  32;  iii.  15;  iv.  33; 
V.  32;  vii,  56;  x.  41,  42;  1  Cor.  xv.  15.  Being  the  corner- 
stone of  the  Christian's  hope  it  has  been  fiercely  assailed.  It 
is  not  our  purpose  to  consider  this  testimony  except  so  far  as  it 
falls  in  with  the  due  exposition  of  the  evangelic  narrative  to 
do  so.  Those  who  desire  a  full  discussion  of  this  whole  subject 
may  be  referred  to  the  elaborate  discourse  of  Humphrey  Ditton 
concerning  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  or  the  less  extensive, 
though  learned  and  convincing  work  of  Gilbert  West,  upon  the 
same  subject.     We  return  now  to  the  narrative: 

Matt,  xxviir.  1.     "In  the  end  of  the  Sabbath*  as  it  began 

*  'O^s  ii  a-^^^^Toov,  after  the  Sabbath  was  ended,  peracto  sahbaio.  Figura- 
tively the  word  siguifies  a  week;  because  each  week  ended  with  the  Sabbath. 
The  Evangelists  use  different  expressions  to'  denote  the  time  when  the  women 
first  came  to  the  sepulchre.  Matthew  says  it  was  t»  i7n<^m(j-x.oij(n,  viz.,  tifxifA  or 
(CD.  These  words  may  signify  in  the  morning  twilight  or  at  the  near  approach  of 
day,  as  appears  by  the  use  of  the  word  by  Luke  xxiii.  54,  where  he  applies  it 
to  the  approach  of  the  Sabbath,  which  began  at  sunset,  and  of  course  with  the 
darkening  rather  than  the  lighting  up  of  the  sky.  Mark  denotes  the  time  by 
the  words  kiolv  Trpiei,  very  early.  Yet  he  adds  the  words  dvctTaAstvToc  toi/  ixiov, 
which  create  a  dilficulty.  But  the  participle  is  in  the  first  aorist,  and  may  be 
translated  orituro  sole,  see  Erasiuus^s  Annotations,  or  cum  sol  oriri  inciperet,  when 
the  sun  was  beginning  to  rise ;  or  at  the  first  sign  of  the  approach  of  the  sun. 
Luke's  expression  is  cpSpou  ^u6io;  (siihaiidi  ovtoc-)  The  word  of6/!ic  denotes  in  pure 
Greek  the  whole  of  the  morning  twilight,  from  the  first  and  faintest  glimmer- 
ing of  it,  until  sunrise.  Of  course  i^S^o?  /SsSuc  signifies  the  early  dawn  in  con- 
tradistinction to  cfidfuQ  s£r;t='Toc.  If  we  feel  a  difficulty  in  apprehending  the  pre- 
cise meaning  of  this  expression,  it  will  be  removed  by  an  actual  observation  of 
the  approach  of  the  morning  light  upon  a  cloudless  sky.     At  first  a  mere 


THE   WOMEN   AT   THE   SEPULCHRE.  457 

to  dawn  towards  the  first  day  of  the  week,  came  Mary  Mag- 
dalen and  the  other  Mary  to  see  the  sepulchre." 

The  other  Mary  here  spoken  of  was  Mary  the  mother  of 
James  and  Joses,  who  sat  over  against  the  sepulchre  when 
Joseph  of  Arimathea  and  Nicodemus  closed  it  with  a  great 
stone.  Matt,  xxvii.  56,  61;  Mark  xv.  47.  John  mentions  only 
Mary  Magdalen,  hut  an  expression  occurs  in  her  communica- 
tion to  Peter  and  John,  from  which  we  may  infer  that  she  went 
not  alone.  "They  have  taken  away  the  Lord  and  [ocoajusu) 
we  hnoiv  not  where  they  have  laid  him."  * 

Mark  seems  to  say  that  Salome  also  accompanied  Mary  Mag- 
dalen, Perhaps  she  did,  although  some  commentators  think 
otherwise. t    The  question  is  not  important.    There  can  be  little 

glimmering  of  grey  light  appears  in  the  East.  This  the  Greeks  called  c^S/ssc 
Thucydides  (3:  112,  4,  110)  has  a^x  cpSpai,  on  the  first  dawn.  This  first  feeble 
beginning  of  light  gradually  increases;  the  sky  becomes  brighter  and  brighter 
until  it  is  changed  into  the  redness  of  flame,  and  presently  the  sun  itself 
appears,  o  (ixioc  dvaTsxxa.  John  denotes  the  time  of  Mary  Magdalen's  arrival  by 
the  words  a-nortm  in  cvn;,  while  it  was  yet  dark.  He  does  not  say  vmrcg  'nt 
oli<rm,  while  it  was  yet  night.  For  the  night  was  past  and  the  first  glimmering 
of  light  had  appeared.  This  agrees  with  the  more  general  expression  of  Luke 
opBpcv  /3a6»oc,  and  with  Mark's  xixv  TTftti,  and  Matthew's  th  \7n<^a)Tx.'.u(n,  understood 
in  the  sense  explained.  Yet  these  expressions  do  not  necessarily  denote  the 
same  moment  of  time,  or,  indeed,  any  moment  of  time  with  exact  precision; 
nor  need  we  maintain  that  they  do,  in  order  to  the  consistency  of  the  Evan- 
gelists. For  proceeding,  as  the  women  probably  did,  from  different  parts  of 
the  city  or  its  neighbourhood,  and  probably  not  setting  out  at  exactly  the 
same  moment,  they  would  naturally  arrive  at  the  sepulchre  at  different  times : 
and  although  all  were  early,  yet  some  would  arrive  earlier  than  others.  If 
we  suppose  the  Evangelists  had  in  view  different  parties — and  there  was  a  con- 
siderable number  of  these  women,  Luke  xxiii.  55;  xxiv.  10, — it  may  serve  to 
account  for  the  diversities  of  expression.  We  add  the  remark  of  an  ancient 
commentator  upon  the  first  part  of  this  verse  (^s  cfs  <Tei^ji.  Tit  ittk^ux:.  compared 
with  Mark  xvi.  1,  2,)  "EvangelistoB  duo  tempora  insinuant;  unum  in  quo 
Dominus  surrexitquod  est  vespera  sabbati;  alterum  in  quo  apparuit  quod  est 
mane  prima  sabbati." 

*  The  word  olJufAW  must  not  be  read  as  two  words,  o/Va,  juiv,  I  know  not,  but 
as  one  word,  ive  know  not.  The  particle  fx-)/  cannot  easily  stand  in  such  a  con- 
struction. Afterwards,  when  she  was  alone,  at  the  sepulchre,  she  changes 
the  expression  from  the  plural  to  the  singular  number,  see  John  xx.  verse  13, 
As  it  was  John's  object  in  the  first  part  of  this  chapter  to  relate  only  how  he 
and  Peter  were  first  informed  of  the  resurrection,  and  what  they  did  and  saw, 
he  had  no  occasion  to  mention  any  of  the  females  who  visited  the  sepulchre, 
except  MaryMagdalen. 

f  A  learned  German  commentator  suggests  that  the  whole  of  the  first  verse 
of  the  xvi.  chapter  of  JIark,  excepting  the  words  k'ju  SiAyivoy.&ov  rou  sa^Qatm, 
should  be  thrown  into  a  parenthesis,  and  the  47th  verse  of  the  xv.  chapter  be 
read  in  connection  with  these  words  joined  immediately  to  the  2d  verse  of  the 
xvi.  chapter.  Thus :  "  And  Mary  Magdalen  and  Mary  the  mother  of  Joses  beheld 
where  he  was  laid;  and  after  the  Sabbath  was  past,  and  very  early  in  the 
morning  of  the  first  day  of  the  week  they  came  unto  the  sepulchre  {For 
Mary  Magdalen  and  Mary  the  mother  of  James  and  Salome  had  liouglit  sweet 
spices  that  they  might  come  and  anoint  him.")  This  construction  allows  us 
to  translate  i<yofx<r'Xv  as  a  pluperfect,  and  thus  harmonize  Mark  with  Luke  xxiii. 
56.     The  authorized  English  version,  though  it  renders  «j.i^.  as  a  pluperfect,  yet 

58 


458  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

doubt,  that  if  slie  did  not  actually  go  witli  them,  she  followed 
soon  after,  as  she  had  joined  them  in  buying  and  preparing 
sweet  spices,  that  they  might  go  together  and  anoint  the  body 
of  their  Lord. 

Mark  xvi.  3,  4.  "And  they  said  among  themselves,  Who 
shall  roll  us  away  the  stone  from  the  door  of  the  sepulchre  ? 
And  when  they  looked  they  saw  that  the  stone  was  rolled  aAvay : 
for  it  was  exceeding  great." 

These  women,  it  appears,  knew  nothing  of  the  military  guard 
which  had  been  set.  They  departed  from  the  place  before  sun- 
set on  Friday,  Luke  xxiii.  56,  and  probably  before  Joseph  and 
Nicodemus.  Had  they  known  of  the  guard  also,  they  would 
have  perhaps  been  deterred  from  making  so  early  a  visit  to  the 
sepulchre  alone  and  unprotected.  We  observe  that  Matthew 
alone  informs  us  how  the  guard  was  dispersed,  and  the  stone 
removed.  Mark,  Luke,  and  John  state  only  the  fact  that  the 
stone  was  removed.  The  words  of  Matthew  should  be  rendered 
thus: 

Matt,  xxviii.  2.  "But  lo!  there  had  been"  (before  these 
women  came,)  "a  great  earthquake:  besides,  an  angel  of  the 
Lord,  [xava^ac;)  having  descended  from  heaven,  and  having 
come  near,  had  rolled*  away  the  stone  from  the  door  and  seated 
himself  upon  it." 

At  what  hour  precisely  these  events  occurred  we  have  no 
means  of  determining;  we  only  know  that  they  occurred  after 
the  Sabbath  .-was  ended  and  before  these  women  arrived.  The 
military  guard  only  witnessed  these  demonstrations  of  the  Divine 
power,  but  what  appalled  them  was  the  appearance  of  the 
angel.  The  Evangelist  adds.  Matt,  xxviii.  3,  4,  "His  counte- 
nancef  was  like  lightning  and  his  raiment  white  as  snow,  and  for 
fear  of  him  the  keepers  did  shake,  and  became  as  dead." 

We  are  not  to  suppose,  as  some  have,  that  the  Evangelist 

represents  the  purchase  as  having  been  made  after  the  Sabbath  was  ended. 
Thus  rendered,  Matthew  and  Mark  agree  in  representing  the  two  Marys  as  the 
first  to  visit  the  sepulchre  in  the  moi-uing.  It  is  highly  probable,  however,  as 
above  suggested,  that  Salome,  if  not  with  them,  was  not  far  behind  them. 

*  The  participles  and  verbs  in  this  verse,  except  the  last,  are  in  the  aorist 
tense,  and  may  be  rendered  in  the  pluperfect,  if  the  sense  requires.  The  aorist, 
it  is  well  known,  is  so  called  quia  non  definit  an  imperfectum,  perfectum  vel  jylus- 
quam  perfectum  denoietur,  Yosains  Harm.,  lib.  iii.  cap.  iii.  ^  7,  Vigerus  de  idiot. 
Gr.  L.,  and  the  marginal  translation  of  the  A.  E.  V.  The  word  na/  in  this 
verse,  is  adversative.  Tuf:  often  signifies  also,  but,  further,  besides,  praterea — 
being  used  as  a  particle  of  transition  merely. 

+  'j/s*  in  this  verse  signifies  the  samtf  as  fjiop^a  or  liJcf.  It  means  more  than 
TTji-ji-anrui ,  which  denotes  only  the  face  or  countenance.  The  Evangelist  means  to 
say,  that  the  whole  form  of  the  angel  at  the  time  of  his  descent  was  dazzling 
like  a  flash  of  lightning,  and  his  (ivivfxa.)  attire,  or  what  seemed  such,  was  as 
white  as  snow. 


THE  DESCENT  OF  THE  ANGEL.  459 

derived  these  particulars  from  the  soldiers  directly  or  medi- 
ately through  the  priests.  The  soldiers  were  too  much  over- 
whelmed with  fear  to  observe  accurately,  or  relate  truthfully, 
more  than  their  overpowering  eifect.  The  Evangelist  wrote  by 
inspiration ;  and  God,  who  taught  Moses  the  wonders  of  crea- 
tion, revealed  to  Matthew  whatever  he  thought  it  needful  that 
the  church  should  know.  Yet  we  observe  nothing  here — (and 
it  is  remarkable) — that  can  minister  to  vain  curiosity.  Of  the 
operations  of  the  Divine  energies  within  the  sepulchre — the 
unrolling  of  the  linen  from  the  body ;  the  orderly  arrangement 
of  it  with  the  other  clothing;  the  rising  of  the  body  from  the 
place  where  it  had  been  laid ;  the  quickening  it  with  the  ener- 
gies of  immortal  life ;  the  manner  in  which  it  came  forth,  and 
the  like  actions — not  a  word  is  dropped,  and  to  us  they  are  as 
inscrutable  as  the  energies  which  will  hereafter  gather  and  re- 
fashion the  sleeping  dust  of  the  saints.  Nor  does  the  Evangel- 
ist inform  us,  even  whether  these  demonstrations  of  power  pre- 
ceded, attended,  or  followed  the  coming  forth  of  the  body  of 
the  Lord  Jesus.  The  angel  who  announced  the  fact  of  the 
resurrection  to  the  women  informed  them  of  nothing  more. 
This  reserve  is  an  unequivocal  note  of  the  inspiration  of  the 
record. 

Most  readers  of  the  New  Testament,  it  is  probable,  assume, 
but  without  reflection,  that  the  descent  of  the  angel,  the  rolling 
away  of  the  stone,  and  the  earthquake,  were  preparatory  to 
the  act  of  our  Lord's  resurrection,  and  that  he  did  not  actually 
come  forth  from  the  sepulchre  until  after  the  impediment  of 
the  stone  had  been  removed.  The  assumption  may  be  accord- 
ing to  truth,  although  the  Evangelist  does  not  affirm  it.  He 
is  silent  on  all  these  particulars.  For  aught  that  is  written, 
the  Lord  may  have  arisen  and  come  forth  before  the  angel's 
descent,  and  such  was  the  belief  of  some  ancient  commentators. 
See  Crrotius  on  Matt,  xxviii.  2;  Vossius,  Harmony,  lib.  iii. 
cap.  ii.  §  5.  Yet  this  opinion,  also,  is  without  express  warrant. 
The  opening  of  the  sepulchre  was  necessary  to  expose  it  to  the 
public  view:  it  was  a  confirmatory  proof  of  the  angel's  an- 
nouncement of  the  resurrection ;  but  that  it  was  necessary  to 
the  exit  of  the  Almighty  occupant,  is  what  we  should  not  dare 
to  affirm.  It  is  vain  to  speculate  how  Omnipotence  accom- 
plishes its  purposes.  The  descent  of  the  angel  and  the  earth- 
quake proved  to  the  watch,  and  through  them  to  the  priests 
and  the  nation,  the  presence  of  the  power  of  God  bringing  to 
naught  all  their  might  and  precaution.  Let  us  not,  however, 
understand  the  language  of  the  Evangelist  too  literally.  The 
apparel  of  the  angel  was,  no  doubt,  visionary,  and  the  rolling 
away  of  the  stone  not  the  work  literally  of  his  hand,  but  the 


460  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

effect  of  the  Divine  power  with  which  he  was  invested,  to  be 
exerted  at  his  will;  see  Matt.  xvii.  20;  xxi.  21;  Mark  xi.  23; 
Luke  xvii.  6,  in  accomplishment  of  the  purpose  for  which  he 
had  been  sent.  How  sublime;  how  awful  the  scene!  The 
sudden  lightning-like  descent  of  the  angel  at  a  still  hour  of  the 
night — the  instantaneous  opening  of  the  sealed  sepulchre — the 
removal  of  the  huge  stone  (//s^ac  a(podpa)  as  a  pebble  before 
him,  and  the  sudden  appearance  of  the  majestic,  glorious  form 
of  the  angel  [irraua))  over  it  and  apparently  resting  upon  it,  in 
a  sitting  posture.  Such  a  scene  was  well  suited  to  strike  the 
keepers  with  dismay. 

How  long  the  angel  retained  his  glorious  form ;  or  how  long 
he  remained  in  the  posture  which  the  Evangelist  describes — 
whether  until  the  keepers  fled,  or  whether  he  disappeared  to 
relieve  them  of  their  fears  and  allow  them  to  recover  their 
faculties  and  their  strength,  are  topics  on  which  we  have  no 
light.  We  only  know  that,  when  the  women  arrived,  the  terror 
of  the  scene  had  passed  away. 

This  passage,  Matt,  xxviii.  2,  3,  4,  is  evidently  parenthetical. 
Mark,  we  have  seen,  represents  the  women  as  anxious  about 
the  removal  of  the  stone,  but  when  they  reached  the  place, 
behold,  all  was  changed !  No  stone !  no  guard !  no  seal ! 
Matthew  alone  explains  how  this  change  was  produced.  The 
women,  as  we  learn  from  John,  did  not  immediately  enter  the 
sepulchre,  but  seeing  the  stone  removed,  they  took  it  as  certain, 
without  stopping  to  examine,  that  the  sepulchre  had  been 
opened  and  the  body  removed  from  it  by  persons  unknown. 
It  is  evident,  also,  that  when  the  two  Marys  first  arrived  at  the 
sepulchre,  no  angel  or  human  person  appeared  to,  or  was  seen 
by  them.  All  was  yet  dark ;  they  perceived  nothing  but  the 
removed  stone  and  open  sepulchre.  Leaving  her  companion, 
Mary  Magdalen,  whose  temperament,  like  Peter's,  was  ardent 
and  impulsive,  John  xx.  2,  "runneth  and  cometh  to  Simon 
Peter,  and  to  the  other  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,  and  saith 
unto  them,  They  have  taken  away  the  Lord  out  of  the  sepulchre, 
and  we  know  not  where  they  have  laid  him." 

Mary  Magdalen  having  thus  departed,  the  other  Mary  was 
left  alone  in  the  dark  at  the  sepulchre,  unless  Salome  was  of 
their  party,  as  no  doubt  she  intended  to  be.  But  soon,  it  is 
probable,  other  females  arrived,  not  all  at  one  time  perhaps,  but 
in  small  parties  and  in  succession.  To  the  company  thus 
formed  the  angel  spoken  of  by  Matthew  appeared,  but  evidently 
in  an  altered  form.  According  to  Mark  xvi.  5,  the  company 
entered  the  sepulchre  before  they  saw  the  angel,  and  though 
Matthew  does  not  expressly  say  so,  the  words  which  he  ascribes 


THE  ANGEL  AT   THE   SEPULCHRE.  461 

to  the  angel  Implj  at  least  tliat  he  addressed  them  not  from 
the  stone,  but  from  within  the  sepulchre. 

Matt,  xxviii.  5,  6.  "Fear  not  ye,  for  I  know  that  ye  seek 
Jesus  who  was  crucified.  He  is  not  here — he  is  risen  as  he 
said.     Come  see  the  place  where  the  Lord  lay." 

This  speech  of  the  angel  is  full  of  majesty.  It  rises  at  each 
pause,  and  at  each  upward  step  the  wonder  heightens.  "Ye 
seek  Jesus  the  crucified  one.  He  is  not  here,  He  lives  as  he 
said.  See,  here  the  place  where  the  Lord  lay."  The  angel 
calls  him  The  Lord,  the  Lord  of  angels  as  of  men,  a  sort  of 
xocvoWjOcQ  the  angel  uses :  as  if  he  had  said,  "  Our  common 
Lord."     He  assigns  no  cause  of  his  resurrection  but  his  word 

... 

{■/a.tico:;  zItts,  sicut  dixit)  as  he  said.  Could  the  angel  have  thus 
spoken  had  not  Jesus  been  truly  divine  ? 

We  observe  that  Matthew  mentions  only  one  angel,  viz.  that 
one  who  spoke  the  words  we  have  just  considered.  He  says 
nothing  expressly  about  the  position  he  occupied,  or  of  his  pos- 
ture while  speaking.  But,  as  before  observed,  we  infer  from 
his  lansfuafre,  that  it  was  addressed  to  the  women  from  within 
the  sepulchre ;  nor  does  Matthew  describe  the  angel's  appear- 
ance.. Mark  represents  him  as  a  young  man  clothed  in  a  long 
white  garment,  sitting  on  the  right  side.  In  these  representa- 
tions there  is  no  contradiction,  but  only  greater  particularity  in 
one  than  in  the  other.  Neither  Evangelist  affirms  that  there 
were  not  other  angels  present :  and  why  may  we  not  believe 
that  there  were  myriads  of  these  holy  beings  gathered  around 
that  place,  each  ready  to  appear  visibly  and  perform  his 
assigned  part?  At  the  birth  of  Jesus,  a  solitary  angel  at  first 
appeared  in  the  fields  of  Bethlehem  to  announce  the  event  to 
the  shepherds ;  but  suddenly  there  appeared  with  him  a  multi- 
tude of  the  heavenly  host.  Luke  ii.  9 — 13.  And  why  only 
one  present  now,  and  not  a  multitude?  Can  we  conceive  of  an 
event  which  could  more  intensely  engage  angelic  minds  than 
this  second  incarnation*  of  the  Lord  of  glory?  1  Pet.  i.  12; 
Job  xxxviii.  7. 

Some  harmonists  suppose  that  Mary  and  Salome  entered  the 
sepulchre  before  any  of  the  other  women  arrived,  and  it  may 
have  been  so;  we  have  no  express  information  on  the  question. 
But  as  they  did  not  enter  the  sepulchre  until  there  was  light 
enough  to  see  objects  within  it,  at  least  dimly ;  they  must  have 

*  In  Rev.  iii.  14,  one  of  the  titles  the  Lord  assumes  is,  (d'  afi)(ji  'rm  x-Ttc-iaa  tw 
©«u)  "  The  beginning  of  the  Creation  of  God."  Does  not  liis  title  have  respect 
to  the  new  creation  spoken  of  in  Rev.  xxi.  5 ;  and  was  not  this  taking  to  him- 
self the  second  time  the  human  body  thus  prepared  and  glorifi/inij  it,  that 
"beginning  of  the  New  Creation,"  to  which  the  title  alludes?  And  may  not 
Col.  i.  15  and  18,  also,  refer  to  his  glorified  humanity?  In  his  Divine  nature 
he  was  without  beginning. 


462  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

lingered  about  the  spot  some  little  time  before  entering, 
although  not  the  whole  {opdpo^)  period  of  the  dawning.  During 
this  time,  it  is  not  improbable  that  some,  though  perhaps  only 
a  few,  of  these  devoted  friends  of  the  Lord,  joined  them.  Yet 
the  company  spoken  of  by  Luke  appears  to  have  aiTived  some 
time  after  the  first  party  left  the  sepulchre,  although  it  could 
not  have  been  very  long.  But  not  to  dwell  on  conjectures,  we 
pass  on  to  the  message  with  which  the  angel  charged  these 
women. 

Matt,  xxviii.  7.  "And  going  quickly,  tell  his  disciples  that 
he  is  risen  from  the  dead." 

Mark  adds  a  particular  which  Matthew  omits :  "  Go  tell  his 
disciples  ayid  Peter.''  We  find  no  difficulty  in  understanding 
the  reason  of  this  special  allusion.  And  how  deeply  must  this 
message  have  affected  Peter's  heart !  As  an  old  writer  says,  it 
was  a  commission  of  comfort  to  all  the  disciples,  for  all  had 
forsaken  him  and  fled;  but  especially  was  it  such  to  Peter,  who 
had  denied  him  with  an  oath.  What  follows  in  this  verse  was 
addressed  by  the  angel  to  the  women.* 

"  Behold  he  goeth  before  {l>ftai;)  you  (not  auzoui;,  them)  into 
Galilee.  There  shall  ye  see  [oi^'eode)  him :  Lo,  I  have  told 
((3/^^v)  you." 

These  allusions  of  the  angel  to  the  promises  made  by  the 
Saviour  in  his  private  intercourse  with  his  disciples.  Matt.  xxvi. 
32 ;  Mark  xiv.  28,  and  to  the  peculiar  sin  of  Peter,  give  us  a 
glimpse  of  the  intercourse  between  angels  and  the  Saviour  and 
his  disciples.  Though  unseen  by  mortal  eye,  they  were  privi- 
leged to  follow  in  his  train,  witness  his  trials  and  sufferings, 
hear  his  words,  and  study  in  him,  as  we  may  believe,  the  deep 
mysteries  of  God  in  the  work  of  redemption.  1  Pet.  i.  12 ; 
1  Cor.  iv.  9;  Matt.  iv.  11;  xxvi.  53;  Heb.  i.  14. 

Matt,  xxviii.  8.  "  And  going  out  quickly,  [k^sldouaae  rayo, 
that  is  from  the  sepulchre  in  which  they  were,]  they  ran  from 
the  sepulchre  with  fear  and  great  joy  to  bring  the  disciples 
word."f 

Mark's  language  is  more  forcible  than  Matthew's.  And  going 

*  Mark  xvi.  7,  as  translated  in  the  E.  V.,  seems  inconsistent  with  this  expla- 
nation. But  the  punctuation  of  the  original  text  is  faulty.  We  should  put  a 
period  after  Peter,  and  make  the  rest  of  the  verse  a  distinct  sentence.  "Go 
tell  his  disciples  and  Peter."  What  ?  That  he  is  risen,  that  he  is  not  here. 
In  other  woi'ds,  "  Go  tell  his  disciples  and  Peter  what  I  have  just  told  you. 
The  particle  oti  like  the  Hebrew  h^  is  asseverative,  or  pleonastic,  as  it  often  is, 
e.g.  in  John  vii.  12.  Why  should  the  angel  charge  the  women  to  tell  the  dis- 
ciples and  Pefer  that  Jesus  would  go  before  them  {viz.  the  women  addressed 
uy-sLi;)  into  Galilee  ? 

f  To  get  this  sense  we  put  a  comma  after  'ra.^u,  and  another  after  eJ/ja^ov,  and 
strike  out  the  comma  after  /xtyahni. 


THE  FLIGHT  OF  THE  WOMEN  FKOM  THE  SEPULCHRE.        463 

out  quickly,  they  fled  from  the  sepulchre.  For  {rpofioz)  trem- 
bling and  (ixavaac^:)  amazement  (sf;^^)  had  seized  them;  neither 
said  they  anything  to  any  one,  i.  e.  while  they  were  fleeing  from 
the  sepulchre  towards  the  place  from  which  they  had  come,  for 
they  were  afraid. 

This  picture  is  drawn  from  life.  The  narrative  bears  internal 
marks  of  its  truthfulness.  How  natural  is  Matthew's  expres- 
sion!— "fear  and  great  joy."  How  contrary  was  this  news  to 
their  expectation !  They  had  come  to  the  sepulchre  to  see  it, 
and  to  weep  there.  They  had  brought  sweet  spices  to  anoint 
his  dead  body.  Could  anything  be  more  contrary  to  their 
expectation  than  what  they  saw  and  heard  ?  The  sepulchre 
open — an  angel  its  only  occupant — no  dead  body  there — the 
linen  clothes  lying — the  napkin  in  a  place  by  itself — and  the 
explicit  announcement  of  the  angel.  A  strong  ray  of  hope  sud- 
denly falls  on  their  hearts.  And  yet  possibly  the  angelic  form 
they  seemed  to  see,  and  the  words  they  seemed  to  hear,  might 
be  unreal,  or  in  some  way  deceptive.  Hence  the  mixture  of 
emotions.  Besides,  the  unwonted  sight  and  voice  of  the  angel 
would  naturally  excite  the  strong  emotions  Mark  describes,  and 
perhaps  even  restrain  for  a  time  the  inclination,  if  not  the 
power,  to  speak.  Then  again,  their  hasty  exit  from  the  sepul- 
chre, their  speed,  and  all  of  them  under  the  influence  of  common 
emotions.  Certainly  unlearned,  unpractised  writers,  such  a3 
Matthew  and  Mark  were,  could  never  have  invented  a  tale  so 
true  to  nature — so  life-like.  These  women  having  thus  fled, 
and  the  angel  perhaps  having  disappeared,  the  sepulchre  was 
again  solitary.  But  soon,  probably  very  soon,  another  party  of 
women  arrived,  whose  visit  is  described  only  by  Luke.  They 
were  the  Galilean  women  of  whom  he  speaks  in  chap,  xxiii. 
55,  56.  These  by  themselves  were  a  large  company,  but  their 
number  was  increased  by  others  who  joined  them.  Luke 
xxiv.  1 — 3.  "  These  came  at  early  dawn,  bringing  the  spices 
they  had  prepared  (before  the  Sabbath,)  and  found  the  stone* 
rolled  away  from  the  sepulchre,  and  entering,  they  found  not 
the  body  of  the  Lord  Jesus." 

Several  circumstances  prove  conclusively  that  this  was  a  dif- 
ferent party  from  that  mentioned  by  Matthew  and  Mark.  To 
this  party  two  angels  appeared,  whom  Luke  describes  as  men 

*  Tov  x/Sov,  that  stone,  [Ifia-TiKoii,)  viz.  that  stone  which  Joseph  of  Ariniathea 
and  Nicodemus  had  put  there,  and  which  the  priests  and  Pharisees  had  caused 
to  be  sealed.  Yet  Luke  had  not  mentioned  anything  about  this  stone  before. 
He  took  it  for  granted,  his  reader  wouhl  readily  supply  this  and  other  circum- 
stances which  were  generally  known.  None  of  the  Evangelists  wrote  as  phi- 
hjsopbers  or  orators  write,  but  as  men  without  culture,  content  to  employ  the 
language  of  common  life.     Luke  is  not  an  exception  to  this  remark. 


464  NOTES   ON    SCRIPTURE. 

in  shining  garments.  They  appeared  in  the  posture  of  stand- 
ing.* The  address  of  the  angels  was  different,  nor  did  they 
charge  the  women  with  any  message  to  the  disciples.  The  ap- 
pearance of  the  angels,  though  it  impressed  the  women  with 
reverential  fear,  so  that  they  inclined  their  faces  toward  the 
earth,  yet  had  no  overpowering  effect.  They  are  not  repre- 
sented as  fleeing  hastily  from  the  sepulchre,  or  as  speechless 
through  fear.  Two  objections  are  sometimes  made  to  this 
view. 

1.  It  is  said  that  Luke  himself  mentions  (in  verse  10)  Mary 
Magdalen,  and  Joanna,  and  Mary  the  mother  of  James,  and 
[at  locTial)  the  rest  with  them ;  and  hence  it  is  inferred  these 
were  the  women  intended  in  the  first  verse.  But  if  such  were 
his  meaning,  why  did  he  not  say,  verse  10,  It  was  Mary  Mag- 
dalen, and  Joanna,  and  Mary  the  mother  of  James,  and  the 
rest  with  them,  who  went  {oftdpou  [-iadeot:)  very  early  to  the 
sepulchre,  bearing  the  spices  they  had  prepared?  And  why 
did  he  say  in  the  ninth  verse,  that  these  women,  whose  visit  to 
the  sepulchre  he  had  described,  told  all  these  things  to  the 
eleven,  and  to  the  rest,  and  in  the  very  next  verse  repeat  that 
Mary  Magdalen,  and  Joanna,  and  the  other  Mary  told  these 
things  also  to  the  apostles,  if  they  were  both  but  one  and  the 
same  party  ?  The  repetition  on  this  view  would  be  quite  use- 
less. 

What  the  Evangelist  intends  may  be  thus  stated.  In  the 
9th  verse  he  says,  these  women  from  Galilee,  of  whom  he  had 
just  spoken,  returned  from  the  sepulchre,  and  told  the  eleven 
what  they  had  seen.  But  there  were  certain  other  females, 
namely,  the  Magdalen  Mary,  and  Joanna,  and  Mary  the 
mother  of  James,  and  the  other  women  [at  Ioitmi)  of  their 
party,  who  had  already  been  to  the  apostles  before,  and  had 
told  them  these  things.  If  this  is  not  the  true  explanation, 
we  can  perceive  no  reason  for  repeating  in  the  lOth  verse  what 
had  already  been  stated  in  the  9th  verse. 

2.  Another  objection  is,  the  phrase  by  which  Luke  de- 
notes the  time  when  these  women  arrived  at  the  sepulchre, 
as  being  at  the  very  earliest  dawn — at  the  first  twinkhng  of 
gray  light,  and  of  course  while  it  was  yet  dark.  In  this  assump- 
tion we  apprehend  lies  a  mistake,  and  the  one  which  has  created 
the  greatest  difficulty  in  harmonizing  this  part  of  the  Evange- 
lists. Luke  uses,  as  we  have  seen,  a  word  {ofidpo^)  which  denotes 
the  whole  period  of  dawning  fr.om  its  earliest  appearance  till 

*  Gilbert  Wakefield  says  (sTecrTucrav)  stood  in  this  place  means  no  more  than 
((iu-av)  were.  The  remark  maj'  be  criticallj  just,  but  we  think  the  Evangelist 
means  to  express  joos^Mre. 


THE  ADDRESS  OF  THE  ANGELS.  465 

sunrise.  To  this  he  adds  the  qualifying  word  {^ado^)  deep; 
which,  while  it  puts  a  negative  upon  the  supposition  that  it  was 
the  appearance  of  the  first  and  faintest  ray  of  light,  intimates 
that  it  was  still  early;  Avhen  the  dawn  was  somewhat,  though 
not  far  advanced.*  Whatever  difficulty  there  may  be  in  ad- 
mitting this  sense  of  the  expression,  there  is  much  more  in 
harmonizing  on  this  assumption  the  other  particulars  of  the 
two  narratives,  and  certainly  it  is  more  reasonable  to  allow 
some  latitude  to  a  general  expression  of  time,  such  as  Luke's 
is,  than  to  add  to  or  take  from  the  material  circumstances  in 
the  narrative  of  either  of  the  Evangelists.  Before  we  leave 
this  passage,  we  should  briefly  notice  the  address  of  these 
angels. 

Luke  xxrv.  5,  6,  7.  "Why  seek  ye  the  living  among  the 
dead?  He  is  not  here,  but  is  risen.  Remember  how  he  spake 
unto  you  when  he  was  yet  in  Galilee,  saying,  The  Son  of  Man 
must  be  delivered  into  the  hands  of  sinful  men,  and  be  crucified, 
and  the  third  day  rise  again." 

The  force  of  the  original  is  weakened  in  this  translation. 
"Why  seek  ye  the  living  one — the  ever-living  Jehovah  Jesus — 
among  dead  mortals?"  The  expression  reminds  us  of  Rev.  i. 
17,  18:  "I  am  the  first  and  the  last,  the  living  one:  I  was 
dead,  but  behold  I  live  for  evermore."  See  John  xiv.  6;  v.  26. 
Here,  as  before,  we  observe  the  only  proof  the  angels  appeal  to 
is  his  own  word:  "Recollect  that  while  yet  in  Galilee  he 
spake  to  you  [of  this  very  event],  saying,  It  behooveth  the  Son 
of  Man  to  be  delivered,"  &c.  How  familiarly  these  holy  beings 
refer  to  a  special  communication  the  Saviour,  foreseeing  this 
very  visit  to  the  sepulchre,  had  ^made  to  these  devoted  females, 
when  perhaps  none  of  his  male  disciples  were  present.  They 
do  not  speak  as  though  they  were  delivering  a  message  with 
which  they  had  been  charged,   but  as  of  their  own  motion, 

*  'A/xa  ofbfai  may  signify  at  the  very  first  appearance  of  dawn.  Tiifi  o/!6gov 
means  about  the  dawn  of  day ;  it  may  be  a  little  before  or  a  little  after  tue 
first  appearance  of  light.  'OpSpic  jS»6uj  denotes  a  time  when  the  dawning  is 
still  deep ;  that  is,  not  far  advanced,  though  not  the  very  first  appearance  of 
light.  As  when  we  say  early  spring,  we  do  not  mean  the  very  first  moment  of 
spring,  but  an  early  portion  of  that  season ;  so  by  early  dawn  we  do  not  mean 
the  very  first  instant  of  the  dawn,  but  the  first  part  of  that  period.  See  a  note 
of  the  Rev.  S.  T.  Bloomfield  on  Thucyd.,  book  III.  §  112,  where  he  endeavours 
to  show  that  hfkfw  0u.(l(o? — A<ay  ?rfa>i  and  a-KOTictc  trt  ouan;,  all  refer  to  the  same 
time,  which  he  expresses  by  the  phrases  "peep  of  day,"  "the  gray  dawn." 
He  cites  most,  if  not  all  the  places  from  classic  authors  in  which  the  expression 
occurs,  and  comes  to  his  conclusion  with  some  difiidence.  Had  he  not  sup- 
posed that  the  three  Evangelists  refer  to  the  same  party  of  women,  his  conclu- 
sion from  his  authorities  would  probably  have  been  different.  It  is  believed 
that  the  word  ji^Quc,  in  the  comparative  or  superlative  degree,  docs  not  occur 
in  connection  with  ipSpsc,  and  the  reason  is,  that  its  use  in  the  positive  degree 
is  to  denote  time  by  comparison. 

59 


466  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE, 

reminding  them  only  of  what  they  already  knew,  and  could  not 
have  forgotten,  yet  did  not  believe,  as  the  spices  they  had  pre- 
pared and  brought  with  them  proved.  We  may  regard  this 
address  as  a  reproof  of  their  unbelief,  and  its  purport  may  be 
thus  expressed:  ""You  ought  not  to  be  surprised  at  any  of 
these  events  which  afflict  you  so  much.  While  yet  in  Galilee, 
the  Lord  told  you  plainly  what  would  befall  him  on  this  visit 
to  Jerusalem.  He  told  you  very  expressly,  too,  that  on  this 
very  day  he  would  rise  from  the  dead.  How  faithless  and  slow 
of  heart  you  are  to  believe  his  plainest  words!" 

We  have  no  means  of  determining  how  long  this  company  of 
women  remained  at  the  place.  They  appear  to  have  entered 
the  sepulchre  immediately  upon  their  arrival.  If  the  dawn  had 
then  so  far  advanced  that  they  could  clearly  distinguish  the 
various  objects  about  them,  they  must  have  seen  what  Peter 
and  John  saw  a  short  time  afterwards.  On  any  supposition, 
they  saw  enough  to  perplex  them  greatly.  At  this  juncture 
the  angels  appeared,  and  explained  the  cause  of  what  they  saw, 
but  could  not  understand. 

The  first  company  of  women  departed  quickly  from  the 
sepulchre,  in  great  fear,  by  the  express  command  of  the  angel. 
Matt,  xxviii.  8;  Mark  xvi.  8.  The  second  company  were  too 
much  impressed  by  the  unlooked-for  appearance  of  the  angels 
and  their  address  to  linger  in  their  presence.  There  was 
probably  a  design  in  these  arrangements,  bringing  first  one 
company  and  then  another,  and  quickly  despatching  them 
to  make  way  for  a  third.  Thus  proofs  were  multiplied,  and  the 
news  was  quickly  and  widely  spread.  However  this  may  be, 
when  Peter  and  John  arrived,  which  could  not  have  been  long 
afterwards,  they  saw  no  person  near. 

While  these  things  were  occurring,  Mary  Magdalen  found 
Peter  and  John,  and  told  them  how  she  went  to  the  sepulchre, 
aud  what  were  her  fears:  "They  have  taken  away  the  Lord 
out  of  the  sepulchre,  and  we  know  not  where  they  have  laid 
him."  What  she  feared,  she  afiirmed  as  a  fact,  but  without 
evidence.  It  was  her  too  hasty  conclusion  from  her  finding  the 
sepulchre  open.  It  is  probable  she  stated  both  the  fact  of  the 
open  sepulchre  and  her  conclusion  from  it. 

John  xx.  3,  4.  "Peter  therefore  {i^rpSev)  went  forth,  and 
that  other  disciple,  and  came  to  the  sepulchre,  and  they  ran 
both  together;  and  that  other  disciple  did  outrun  Peter,  and 
came  first  to  the  sepulchre." 

The  impression  Mary's  communication  made  on  the  minds  of 
these  disciples  may  be  gathered  from  these  verses.  They 
r(garded  it  as  very  extraordinary.  It  impressed  them  very 
deeply.     Had  she  told  them  she  found  the  sepulchre  closed 


PETER   AND   JOHN   AT   THE   SEPULCHRE.  467 

■vritli  the  stone,  and  surrounded  with  a  military  guard,  it  would 
have  been  just  what  they  expected,  and  probably  they  would 
have  remained  unmoved  where  they  were.  But  who  could 
have  removed  the  stone  and  conveyed  away  the  body?  To 
what  place  had  it  been  taken  ?  And  what  motive  could  any 
have  for  such  a  desecration,  especially  at  that  time?  By  what 
means,  if  any,  could  they  recover  the  body,  that  they  might 
bury  it  elsewhere,  beyond  the  reach  of  malice?  These,  or  such 
as  these,  were  probably  the  questions  which  occupied  their 
hearts  and  thoughts. 

John  xx.  5.  "And  he,  stooping  down,  saw  the  linen  clothes 
lying,  yet  went  he  not  in." 

John  was  eager  to  see  what  could  be  seen,  but  his  timidity  of 
character  prevented  him  from  actually  entering.  Howstrano-e! 
This  disciple,  who  feared  not  to  stand  at  the  foot  of  the  cross 
during  the  fearful  scene  of  the  crucifixion,  had  not  the  courage 
to  enter  the  sepulchre  alone ! 

John  xx.  6,  7.  "  Then  cometh  Simon  Peter,  folioAving 
him,  and  went  into  the  sepulchre,  and  seeth  the  linen  clothes 
lie,  and  the  napkin  that  was  about  his  head  not  lying  with  the 
linen  clothes,  but  wrapped  together  in  a  place  by  itself." 

We  are  struck  with  the  particularity  of  the  narrative, 
and  its  perfect  consistency  with  the  known  characters  of 
these  apostles.  Peter,  upon  reaching  the  sepulchre,  did  not 
pause  an  instant.  He  entered  it  to  ascertain  with  certainty 
the  minutest  facts  of  the  case.  How  consistent  this  with 
his  ardent,  decided  character !  John,  emboldened  by  Peter's 
example, 

John  XX.  8.  "Then  went  in  also,  and  he  saw  and  be- 
lieved"— 

What?  He  saw  what  Peter  had  seen,  viz.  the  condition  of 
the  sepulchre  and  of  the  linen  clothes  and  napkin,  and  believed 
what  Mary  Magdalen  had  told  him.  To  this  interpretation  it 
is  objected  that  he  might  have  believed  thus  much  without 
entering  the  sepulchre.  Hence  it  is  inferred  by  some  that  he 
believed  something  more  and  greater.  The  particulars  he 
records  about  the  clothes  and  the  napkin,  and  the  manner  in 
which  they  were  laid,  are  mentioned  as  the  ground  of  the 
conclusion  he  had  formed,  and  which  he  expresses  by  the  word 
{imareuazv)  believed — a  word  which  is  commonly  used  in  a 
religious  sense  in  this  gospel,  iii.  15;  x.  26;  xix.  35.  There 
is  force  in  these  considerations.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  John 
here  speaks  for  himself  only.  He  does  not  say  anything  about 
Peter's  reasonings  or  conclusions,  nor  does  he  say  that  either 
communicated  his  reflections  to  the  other ;  but  he  adds,  that 
both  he  and  Peter 


468  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTUKE. 

John  xx.  9.     "  Until  that  time  (oudsTno)  had  not  understood 
oux  fjoscaap)  the  Scripture  that  he  must  rise  from  the  dead." 

His  meaning,  therefore,  may  be,  that  reasoning  from  these 
facts,  and  recalling  our  Lord's  repeated  declaration,  that  he 
should  rise  from  the  dead  on  the  third  day,  light  began  to  break 
upon  his  mind,  and  he  soon  came  to  the  true  conclusion,  while 
Peter  may  have  remained  ignorant  of  the  true  solution  until  the 
Lord  actually  appeared  to  him.  These  disciples,  being  left  to 
their  own  conjectures,  may  have  reasoned  differently.  No  inter- 
preting angel  appeared  to  them,  and  the  thought  of  his  resur- 
rection might  occur  to  one  and  not  to  the  other  as  a  possible 
solution  of  the  strange  occurrence.  While  they  lingered  about 
the  solitary  spot,  Mary  Magdalen  returned,  but  whether  any 
inquiries  or  communications  passed  between  her  and  them  we 
are  not  informed.  Not  a  word  is  recorded  as  having  been 
uttered  by  either  Peter  or  John  while  they  were  there.  All  we 
knovr  is,  that  having  seen  what  they  could, 

John  xx.  10,  12.  "They  went  away  again  to  their 
respective  homes,  while  Mary  stood  without  at  the  sepulchre 
weeping ;  and  as  she  wept,  she  stooped  down  and  looked  into 
the  sepulchre,  and  seeth  two  angels  in  white  sitting,  the  one  at 
the  head  and  the  other  at  the  feet  where  the  body  of  Jesus  had 
lain." 

It  was  the  strong  affection  and  deep  sorrow  of  Mary  which 
detained  her  thus  alone  at  the  sepulchre.  Yet  she  did  not  ven- 
ture to  enter  it,  as  Peter  and  John  had  done.  Perhaps  she 
designed  to  do  so,*  and  would  have  done  so,  had  she  not  when 
stooping  down  discovered  the  angels  within,  whom  she  took  to 
be  men. 

Do  we  inquire  whether  these  angels  were  in  the  sepulchre 
while  Peter  and  John  were  there,  unperceived?  Or  did  they 
enter  it  after  these  disciples  had  departed,  without  being  seen 
by  Mary?  Were  they  the  same  angels  that  had  appeared  be- 
fore, or  others?  These  questions  we  cannot  answer;  yet  we 
may  learn  from  the  narrative,  however  explained,  something  of 
the  extraordinary  powers  with  which  these  holy  beings  are 
gifted,  and  how  they  can  minister  unseen  to  the  heirs  of  salva- 
tion while  yet  on  the  earth. 

We  do  not  reflect  as  we  ought  what  numbers  of  them  may 
move  daily  in  the  paths  of  human  activity,  wholly  unperceived 
by  us,  or,  if  perceived,  regarded  as  these  were  by  Mary.  1  Cor. 
iv.  9;  Heb.  xiii.  2;  Luke  xv.  10;  Matt,  xviii.  10;  Rom.  viii.  38 ; 

*  The  words  TretpMu-^tv  tU  to  (^vh/uuoi  may  signify,  she  stooped  towards  the  sepul- 
chre to  enter  into  it.  The  words  and  looked  in  our  translation,  are  not  in  the 
original. 


MARY  MAGDALEN   WEEPING   AT   THE    SEPULCHRE.         469 

1  Tim.  V.  21."  During  the  present  dispensation,  we  are  clearly 
taught,  they  fulfil  a  most  important  ministry,  Ileb.  i.  14,  -which 
in  the  world  to  come  will  be  supplied  by  the  glorified  saints, 
whose  service  may  then  be  performed  for  the  most  part  as  un- 
perceived  as  the  ministry  of  the  angels  is  now.  Ileb.  ii.  5 ; 
Luke  XX.  36;  Rev.  v.  10. 

John  xx.  13.  "They  say  unto  her,  Woman,  why  weepest 
thou?" 

Why  should  they  ask  such  a  question?  Did  they  not  know 
why  she  wept?  Did  they  purpose  to  reply  to  her,  but  were 
prevented  by  the  unexpected  appearance  of  the  Lord  himself? 
Or  were  they  conscious  of  his  presence  before?  Or  was  their 
question  designed  merely  to  soften  her  surprise,  or  to  invest  the 
occurrence  with  the  appearance  of  human  life?  Or  do  angels 
sympathize  in  the  sorrows  of  God's  people,  and  administer  con- 
solation by  silent  suggestion,  and,  when  permitted,  by  audible 
speech  ? 

John  xx.  13.  "She  saith  unto  them.  Because  they  have 
taken  away  my  Lord,  and  I  know  not  where  they  have  laid 
him."* 

This  answer  shows  how  ignorant  this  devoted  disciple  was  of 
her  Lord's  exalted  character,  and  of  the  real  object  and  end  of 
his  ministry.  It  shows  us  too,  how  completely  his  Divine  nature 
was  concealed  in  his  human,  or,  perhaps  we  should  say,  how 
truly  and  perfectly  he  was  a  man.  Mary  thought  of  him  only 
as  a  deceased  human  friend,  whose  lifeless,  helpless  corpse  had 
been  removed  from  its  resting-place  by  rude  hands — perhaps  by 
his  enemies.  In  the  fulness  of  her  heart  she  had  come  early  to 
the  sepulchre  to  embalm  his  beloved  remains,  and  preserve  them 
from  early  corruption.  Her  grief  was  that  she  was  deprived 
of  this  mournful  service.  Had  she  thought  of  his  resurrection 
to  life,  could  she  have  wept?  Could  she  have  inquired  about 
where  his  body  was  concealed  ?  How  improbable  it  is,  then, 
that  Mary,  and  all  those  who  shared  in  her  disappointment, 
Luke  xxiv.  21,  could  have  agreed  together  to  circulate  a  report 
of  his  resurrection !  Matt,  xxvii.  64.  We  observe  that  Mary 
replies  to  the  inquiry  of  the  angels  with  composure;  at  least 
without  fear  of  them.  She  supposed  them,  in  fact,  to  be  men, 
not  reflecting  that  they  could  not  have  entered  the  sepulchre  if 
they  were  such,  without  her  knowledge. 

But  the  women  to  whom  the  angels  appeared  before,  were 
very  differently  impressed;  they  made  no  reply,  but  fled 
aS"righted  and  speechless  from  the  place.    Matt,  xxviii.  5,  8; 

*  A  writer  remarks,  "  Perhaps  she  surmised  that  they  had  done  the  act,  but 
did  not  like  to  tax  them  with  it." 


470  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

Mark  xvi.  6 — 8.  Wlij  this  difference?  We  suppose  it  was 
because  the  Lord  designed  to  show  himself  to  this  disciple,  and 
make  her  the  first  human  witness  of  his  resurrection.  Another 
reason  may  be  found,  perhaps,  in  the  typical  office  which  Mary 
fulfilled  at  that  time,  which  will  be  explained  hereafter.  For 
these  purposes  it  was  necessary  that  her  mind  should  not  be 
discomposed  by  fear,  or  by  any  such  strong  emotions  as  would 
disqualify  her  for  tranquil  and  exact  observation. 

John  xx.  14.  "And  when  she  had  thus  said,  she  turned 
herself  back,  and  saw  Jesus  standing,  and  knew  not  that  it  was 
Jesus." 

Naturally  would  Mary  withdraw  from  the  sepulchre  on  seeing 
two  men  within  it.  If  her  purpose  was,  when  she  stooped,  to 
enter  it,  she  would  postpone  it  until  the  men,  as  she  took  them 
to  be,  had  withdrawn.  She  turned,  perhaps  with  the  intention 
of  retiring,  till  they  should  withdraw,  to  some  place  out  of 
view.  Some  commentators  understand  the  words  {iazpaipri  zlci 
za  OTicaco)  of  the  Evangelist  as  signifying  that  she  left  the 
sepulchre,  and  was  on  her  way  returning  to  the  city.  We  see 
no  occasion  for  this  interpretation.  The  narrative,  which  is 
very  circumstantial,  seems  rather  to  imply,  that  at  the  instant 
of  rising  from  her  stooping  posture,  and  averting  her  face  from 
the  sepulchre,  she  saw  the  Lord  standing  near  her,  as  it  were, 
before  the  door  of  the  sepulchre,  within  her  reach,  and  in  the 
view,  perhaps,  of  the  persons  within  the  sepulchre. 

John  xx.  15.  "Jesus  said  unto  her:  Woman,  why  weepest 
thou?     Whom  seekest  thou?" 

The  first  of  these  inquiries  is  the  same  as  that  just  before 
made  by  the  angels.  Yet  neither  question  was  put  for  infor- 
mation, but  rather  as  a  proof  to  Mary  of  the  reality  of  his 
bodily  presence.  It  is  not  necessary  to  say  that  he  needed  not 
that  she  should  tell  him  why  she  wept,  or  whom  she  sought. 
His  voice,  his  appearance,  and  perhaps  the  place,  suggested  to 
her  that  he  was  the  gardener,  and  she  replied  in  continuation 
of  her  answer  to  the  angels,  which  she  took  it  for  granted  he 
had  heard. 

John  xx.  15.  "If  thou  hast  borne  him  hence,  tell  me  Avhere 
thou  hast  laid  him,  and  I  will  take  him  away." 

"And  if  thou  (art  the  person  who)  bore  Jiim  (that  is  his  dead 
body)  hence,"  &c.  This  language  is  perfectly  natural,  and  just 
such  as  would  be  suggested  by  the  circumstances;  and  so  was 
the  grief  which  lavished  itself  on  the  inanimate  remains  of  her 
departed  friend.  Yet  these  did  not  constitute  the  Lord's  per- 
son. Luke  xxiii.  43.  But  how  remote  from  her  mind — we 
repeat — was  the  thought  of  his  resurrection  from  the  dead! 
We  cannot  account  for  Mary's  mistake,  but  by  supposing  that 


JESUS    MAKES   HIMSELF   KNOWN   TO   MART.  471 

our  Lord's  address  to  her — his  appearance,  voice,  and  manner, 
were  perfectly  in  keeping  with  one  who  might  be  supposed  to 
have  the  care  of  the  garden,  though  it  is  not  necessary  to  sup- 
pose that  he  bore  about  his  person  any  badge  or  indication  of 
that  employment.  The  place  where  he  appeared,  and  his 
familiar  demeanour  gave  rise,  perhaps,  to  the  conjecture. 
Here  we  may  remark,  that  a  perfect  power  over  the  external 
form  appears  to  be  a  distinguishing  attribute  of  spiritual 
natures.  We  have  seen  examples  of  it  in  the  angels  who 
appeared  on  this  eventful  morning,  and  we  now  have  another 
example  of  it  in  the  person  of  Jesus.* 

JOFIN  XX.  16.  "Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Mary:  She  turned 
herself  and  said  uuto  him,  Rabboni,  which  is  to  say,  Master," 
[rather,  "my  master!"]  "it  is  my  master!"! 

On  seeing  the  angels  within  the  sepulchre,  Mary  turned  from 
it,  and  in  so  doing  she  perceived  Jesus,  obliquely — or  as  we  may 
say — over  her  shoulder.  In  this  half-averted  posture  he  first 
addressed  her  and  she  replied.  But  upon  hearing  her  name 
pronounced  [arpaipecao)  turning  yet  more,  so  as  to  survey  his 
person,  instantly  she  recognized  him.  How  great  was  her  sur- 
prise !  One  word  was  all  that  she  said,  or  could  say.  Her 
highest  hope  and  most  intense  desire,  at  that  very  moment, 
was  to  find  the  dead  body  of  her  friend.  The  bitterness  of 
her  grief  she  had  just  vented  in  his  ear  whom  she  sought  for  as 
dead.  She  had  found  him,  not  dead,  as  she  hoped,  but  alive, 
which  she  had  not  thought  of  as  possible. 

Some  commentators  suppose  that  our  Lord  at  first  assumed 
the  tones  of  a  strange  voice,  but  afterwards  changed  them  to 
his  own.  We  suppose  that  it  was  through  his  power  over  the 
mind  and  spirit  of  Mary  that  he  made  himself  known  to  her. 
Her  conviction  of  the  reality  of  his  presence  and  of  the  iden- 

*  We  have  sometimes  thought  our  Lord  tacitly  alluded  to  this  power  in  his 
dii^course  on  the  Mount,  Matt.  vi.  25,  27;  Luke  xii.  22,  27,  "Take  no  thought 
for  your  life,"  "nor  yet  for  your  body,  for  which  of  you  {/^ifi/xm)/,  though 
earnestly  and  anxiously  desiring  it,)  can  add  one  cubit  to  his  stature;"  as  if  he 
had  said,  Why  bestow  so  much  care  and  anxiety  upon  such  frail  and  imperfect 
structures  as  your  mortal  bodies  are,  which  are  so  little  under  the  control  of 
your  spiritual  and  nobler  natures?  Seek  rather  an  entrance  into  the  kingdom 
of  God,  where  you  will  be  endowed  with  immortal  and  glorious  bodies,  which 
will  be  so  perfectly  subject  to  your  spiritual  natures  that  you  will  have  power, 
simply  by  taking  thought,  to  assume  any  form  and  stature,  and  appear  and 
disappear  in  any  part  of  the  universe,  as  the  service  of  God  may  require. 

t  -^a-i  Rabban  Princeps  was  the  highest  title  of  a  Jewish  teacher.      Buxtorf 

(see  the  word  in  his  Lex.  Talmud,  fol.  col.  217G,)  says :  "  Titulus  sunimrc  dig- 
nitatis circa  tempora  nati  Christ!,  nrtus  in  Ilillelis  tiliis  qui  principatnin  ges- 
serunt,  in  populo  Israelis  per  ducentos  circiter  aunos.  Septem  tantum  hoc 
titulo  appellati  fuere  qui  prteter  doctrinam  et  prudentiam  etiam  fuerunt 
fij^iu;']  principea  et  hujus  status  respectu  appellati  fuere  singuli  Rabban." 


472  NOTES   ON   SCMPTUEE. 

tity  of  his  person  appears  to  have  been  instantly  full  and  per- 
fect, just  as  it  was  eight  days  afterwards  in  the  case  of  Thomas, 
verse  28.  This  power  is  an  attribute  with  which  he  will  endow 
the  renewed  nature  of  all  his  people  when  they  shall  be 
changed  into  his  likeness. 

Although  Mary  uttered  only  one  word  at  this  interview,  yet 
it  is  supposed  she  approached  him  as  if  to  touch  his  person,  or 
that  she  fell  at  his  feet,  as  if  to  embrace  them,  which  gave  occa- 
sion to  the  first  part  of  our  Lord's  reply,  "  Touch  me  not." 
Why  should  he  forbid  her  to  touch  him  unless  she  were  attempt- 
ing to  do  so  ?  We  might  admit  the  conjecture  as  plausible,  or 
at  least  as  harmless,  were  it  not  made  the  ground  of  inter- 
preting the  rest  of  the  sentence.  If  the  sense  of  the  passage 
depended  upon  such  an  action  of  Mary,  we  cannot  suppose  it 
would  have  been  passed  over  in  silence.  We  prefer  to  con- 
sider the  record,  as  designed  to  convey  important  instruction  to 
the  Church,  2  Tim.  iii.  16,  rather  than  to  denote  a  fugitive 
circumstance  personal  to  Mary  and  her  fellow  disciples. 

John  xx.  17.  "Jesus  saith  unto  her  {fir]  [xou  b.7ixoo)  touch 
me  not,  for  I  have  not  yet  ascended  to  my  Father  {obr^cD  yap 
dual^sftrjxa  npoc  rov  nazepa  poo.) 

Most  commentators  say  this  is  a  very  dark  and  difficult  pas- 
sage, and  some  say  it  is  the  most  difficult  in  the  history  of  the 
resurrection ;  yet  it  would  be  impossible  to  find  a  passage  more 
easy  to  be  understood,  if  we  take  the  words  in  their  literal 
sense.  It  is  only  when  we  adopt  the  common  prejudice  of  a 
single  ascension  at  the  end  of  forty  days  that  we  feel  obliged 
to  depart  from  the  plain  sense  of  the  words,  "  Touch  me  not, 
because  I  have  not  yet  ascended  to  my  Father,"— implying, 
that  if  he  had  ascended,  she  might  touch  his  person.  The 
difficulty  is  to  reconcile  this  sense  with  the  fact  that  a  short 
time  afterwards  he  allowed  the  women  whom  he  met  returning 
from  the  sepulchre  to  the  city,  to  hold  him  by  the  feet.  Yet 
the  common  belief  is,  he  had  not  ascended  at  that  time,  and  did 
not  ascend  until  he  had  given  his  disciples  many  infallible 
proofs  of  his  resurrection,  by  means  of  the  touch,  as  well  as 
the  senses  of  sight  and  hearing.  Luke  xxiv.  39  ;  John  xx.  25  ; 
Acts  i.  3;.x.  41. 

This  difficulty  is  generally  got  rid  of,  by  rejecting  the  literal 
sense,  and  substituting  another  which  the  words  do  not  natu- 
rally bear.  Thus :  Cling  not  to  me  :  spend  no  more  time  with 
me  in  joyful  gratulations:  For  I  am  not  going  to  ascend  imme- 
diately: Non  statim  ascendo—adhuc  versor  in  terris.  You  will 
have  many  opportunities  of  seeing  me  again.  Therefore,  go 
now  to  my  brethren  without  delay,  and  tell  them  (dvaj^aiuco) 


THE   HIGH    PRIEST   A   TYPE   OF   CHRIST.  473 

that  I  sliall  ascend,  depart  (that  is,  after  forty  days)  to  my 
Father  and  your  Father ;  to  my  God  and  your  God. 

This  paraphrase  converts  the  perfect  and  present  tenses  of 
dva^acvco  into  the  future,  and  assigns  to  {bszroiifu)  the  word 
touch,  a  sense  which  it  does  not  elsewhere  bear.*  It  is  remarka- 
ble how  very  generally  the  commentators  agree  in  rejecting  the 
literal  sense.  Yet  we  believe  the  literal  sense,  as  expressed 
in  the  authorized  English  version,  gives  the  true  reason  of 
the  prohibition ;  "  Because  I  have  not  yet  ascended  to  my 
Father." 

The  high  priest  under  the  Levitical  economy  was  a  type 
of  Christ.  He  only,  of  all  the  priests,  went  into  the  holiest 
place  once  a  year,  and  then  not  without  blood.  Levit.  xvi.  3; 
Exod.  XXX.  10 ;  Heb.  ix.  7,  12.  No  person  was  permitted  to 
be  with  him  in  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregationf  on  the  great 
day  of  expiation.  Preparatory  to  the  solemnities  of  that  day, 
the  high  priest  was  removed  from  his  house  and  family  during 
seven  days,  lest  he  should  contract  a  defilement  which  would 
disqualify  him  for  the  solemn  occasion.  On  the  day  of  atone- 
ment, he  purified  himself  with  water,  before  he  entered  on  his 
duties,  Levit.  xvi.  4;  and  one  reason  why  no  person  was 
permitted  to  be  with  him  in  the  tabernacle  at  that  time  was,  it 
is  probable,  to  prevent  the  possibility  of  ceremonial  or  actual 
pollution,  by  even  the  slightest  touch  of  any  of  the  people  on 
whose  behalf  he  was  acting.  See  Broivn's  Antiquities,  vol.  i.,  548. 

Now  the  whole  of  this  ceremonial  was  typical  of  the  sacri- 
ficial work  of  the  Lord  Jesus;  and  when  he  appeared  to  Mary, 
he  was,  so  to  speak,  midway  in  the  act  of  making  that  atone- 
ment which  the  Levitical  ceremonial  and  the  high  priest 
prefigured.  He,  the  priest  and  the  victim,  had  been  slain — his 
blood  shed,  but  he  had  not  yet  entered  the  holy  place,  Heb. 
ix.  11,  12,  that  is,  the  Upper  Sanctuary  of  which  the  earthly 
was  a  type — or,  using  his  own  words — he  had  not  yet  ascended 
to  the  Father,  but  at  that  very  moment  was  on  the  point  of 
doing  so.  No  person,  therefore,  could  intercept,  or  even  touch 
his  person  at  that  time.     Hence,  as  we  suppose,  the  prohibition, 

*  See  Canne,  Brown,  Blaney,  Scott,  Townsend,  Chandler,  Clarke,  Diodat', 
Jansenius,  Bengel,  Lamy,  Chemnitz,  Gottfried  Less.,  Glassius,  Vigerus  de 
Idiom.  Gr.  L.  And,  for  the  use  of  a.7rti/Atti  in  the  New  Testament,  see  Matt. 
viii.  3,  15;  ix.  20,  21,  29;  xiv.  36;  xvii.  7;  xx.  34.  Mark  i.  41;  iii.  10;  v. 
27,  28,  30,  31;  vi.  56;  vii.  33;  viii.  22.  Luke  v.  13;  vi.  19;  vii  14,  39; 
viii.  44,  45,  46,  47;  xviii.  15;  xxii.  51.  Gottf.  Less,  cites  Luke  xviii.  15  and 
1  John  V.  18  to  prove  that  oLvro/xaj  may  signify  to  embrace  pr  take  violent  hold 
of.  But  such  constructions  are  not  only  unnecessary  in  those  places,  but 
very  harsh. 

f  Some  have  suggested  the  expression,  "tent  of  meeting,"  that  is  between 
God  and  man,  instead  of  Tabernacle  of  the  Congregation.     See  Exod.  xxix.  42, 
43 ;  XXV.  8 ;  Rev.  xxi.  3 
60 


474  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

"Touch  me  not."  The  type  must  be  fulfilled  in  all  points,  and 
in  this  as  well  as  others. 

But  why,  it  may  be  inquired,  did  he  thus  show  himself  to 
Mary,  and  to  her  only  ?  Why  was  not  John  or  Peter  or  Mary 
his  mother,  favoured  with  this  first  view  of  his  risen  person? 
Or  what  necessity  was  there  that  he  should  appear  to  any 
of  his  disciples  before  his  ascension  ?  It  is  diflBcult,  perhaps 
quite  impossible,  to  answer  such  questions  with  confidence, 
except  by  saying,  that  such  was  his  sovereign  pleasure.  Yet,  if 
we  may  be  allowed  to  conjecture,  there  was  a  typical  necessity 
for  the  selection  of  some  person,  and  a  typical  propriety  or 
exigency  was  fufillled  by  the  selection  of  this  female.  Our 
Lord  was  manifested  in  the  flesh,  that  he  might  destroy  the 
works  of  the  devil.  1  John  iii.  8.  This  woman  is  spoken  of 
in  Luke  viii.  2,  as  having  been,  in  a  peculiar  manner,  the 
victim  of  Satanic  power,  whom  the  Lord  had  not  only  delivered 
from  a  cruel  bondage,  but  had  made  an  eminent  example 
of  his  grace.  It  is  remarkable  that  the  Evangelists,  in 
speaking  of  her,  always  for  some  cause,  distinguish  her  from 
the  rest.  Thus  Luke,  in  the  place  just  cited,  viii.  2,  mentions 
several  females,  but  Mary  Magdalen  only  by  name.  Matthew 
xxvii.  56,  mentions  many  others,  but  Mary  Magdalen,  and 
Mary  the  mother  of  James  and  Joses,  only  by  name.  So 
Luke  xxiv.  10 — though  he  names  two  others,  mentions  Mary 
Magdalen  first.  No  cause  is  assigned  for  the  distinction, 
yet  it  is  evident  it  was  made  and  recognized  during  our  Lord's 
ministry,  and  with  his  approval.  It  is  confirmatory  of  this 
view,  that  he  should  appear  first  of  all  to  her  upon  the 
morning  of  his  resurrection,  although  so  many  other  females 
had  been  at  the  sepulchre:  and  the  question  to  be  resolved 
is,  why  was  this  last,  this  crowning  distinction  bestowed 
upon  her? 

She  was  a  fit  representative,  as  Barabbas  was,  of  those 
whom  the  Lord  came  to  redeem.  But  with  this  further  dis- 
tinction— Barabbas  was  the  representative  of  those  still  in 
bondage  to  Satan;  but  Mary,  of  those  delivered  therefrom 
through  the  Divine  power  and  grace  of  the  Saviour.  In  other 
words:  She  was  chosen  to  represent,  as  it  were,  at  the  altar  of 
the  great  atonement,  the  true  Israel,  or  the  elect  people  of 
God;  who,  like  her,  will  all  be  delivered  from  the  bondage  of 
Satan  and  transformed,  while  living  in  the  flesh,  into  his  friends 
and  followers:  although,  like  her,  they  will  still  be  impure  and 
their  touch  defiKng,  by  reason  of  their  sinful  natures,  until  their 
bodies  shall  be  transformed  by  his  Almighty  power  into  con- 
formity with  his  likeness. 

But  why  should  he  exhibit  himself  to  such  a  representative, 


MARY  A  REPRESENTATIVE  CHARACTER.        47§ 

before  he  entered  the  sanctuary  above  ?  This  is  another  question 
equally  difficult  to  resolve.  Yet  may  we  not  suggest,  that  as 
the  people  of  Israel  during  the  Levitical  economy  and  the  taber- 
nacle service,  stood  assembled  without  the  outer  tabernacle,  and 
the  high  priest  was  not  altogether  hidden  from  their  view,  until 
he  entered  within  {xaxa'Kzxaaixa)  the  inner  veil;  so  Mary  was 
brought  to  this  place  at  the  moment  of  the  passing  of  our  great 
High  Priest  within  the  veil,  i.  e.  his  ascension  to  the  Father, 
that  she  might,  in  this  respect  also,  fulfil  the  import  of  the  typi- 
cal tabernacle  service. 

Having  thus  exhibited  himself  to  Mary  Magdalen  first  of  all, 
as  Mark  xvi.  9*  expressly  informs  us,  he  gave  her  a  message  to 
his  brethren,  quite  difi"erent  from  that  he  soon  afterwards  gave 
the  women  returning  from  the  sepulchre.  Matt,  xxviii.  10. 

John  xx.  17.  "Go  to  my  brethren,  and  say  to  them,  I 
ascend  to  my  Father  and  your  Father,  to  my  God  and  your 
God." 

To  the  company  of  women  he  said  nothing  of  his  ascension 
to  the  Father,  but  simply,  "  Go  tell  my  brethren,  that  they  go 
into  Galilee,  there  shall  they  see  me."  If  his  ascension  to  the 
Father  were  to  follow  his  appearance  in  Galilee,  why  send  this 
message  to  them  before  going  thither?  Why  send  it  at  all? 
Why  did  he  not  communicate  it  to  thein  in  person  ?  If  he  were 
not  to  ascend  till  after  forty  days,  he  would  have  frequent  op- 
portunities of  communicating  this  fact  to  them.  We  submit  to 
the  judgment  of  the  reader  whether  this  message  should  not 
be  explained  by  John  xvi.  28;  xiii.  31;  xiv.  2,  3,  12; 
xvi.  5,  7,  and  similar  passages.  In  his  farewell  discourse,  he 
had  assured  them  of  his  speedy  departure  from  the  world  to  the 
Father,  and  explained  to  them,  as  far  as  they  were  capable  of 
understanding  him,  the  great  benefits  which  this  event  would 
bring  them.  He  now  sends  them  word  by  Mary,  that  he  was 
on  the  point  of  executing  that  purpose.  Hence,  when  they 
should  afterwards  see  him  in  Galilee,  or  elsewhere,  they  were  to 
regard  him,  not  as  an  inhabitant  of  the  earth,  but  as  come, 
again  to  them  from  the  Father,  and  who  would  at  length  come 
to  receive  them   to  himself  to  abide  for  ever  with  him.  John 

*  "  'E^Ktvx. — In  the  History  of  the  Resurrection  this  word  is  erroneously 
translated  'appearance.'  An  expression  which  in  the  German  leads  to  a  gross 
and  dangerous  mistake,  viz.,  that  Jesus  never  showed  himself,  but  suddenly 
and  with  a  rustling  sound,  such  as  superstition  imagines  a  spectre  to  cause. 
This  is  by  no  means  the  meaning  of  the  Evangelist;  for  the  word  \^mm  is  also 
used  of  the  presentation  of  one  with  whom  we  are  intimate  and  in  whose  so- 
ciety we  have  long  participated:  e.g.  Matt.  vi.  5,  1(J,  18;  also  xiii.  26.  Be- 
sides, we  know  from  Acts  i.  3,  4,  that  the  friends  of  Jesus  enjoyed  as  intimate 
communion  with  him  after  his  resurrection  as  before  his  death." — Less  on  the 
Resurrection, 


476  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

xiv.  2,  3;  xvl.  16.  In  accordance  with  this  idea,  he  spoke  of 
himself  in  his  first  interview  with  the  apostles  the  same  evening, 
as  being  no  longer  with  them  in  his  earthly  jelations — as  of  one 
belonging  to  another  world.  Luke  xxiv.  44.  This  gracious 
message,  then,  served  to  denote  the  moment  at  which  his  earthly 
ministry  was  completed,  just  as  the  rending  of  the  veil  denoted 
the  end  of  the  Levitical  economy.  Accordingly,  we  suppose 
that  having  given  it,  the  Lord  instantly  disappeared  from  the 
view  of  Mary  and  appeared  in  the  presence  of  the  Father.  The 
Evangelist  does  not  expressly  say  so — nor  was  it  necessary,  if 
the  design  were  such  as  we  have  supposed ;  because  it  might  be 
left  to  be  inferred  by  the  reader.* 

John  xx.  18.  "  Mary  Magdalen  came  [went]  and  told  the 
disciples  that  she  had  seen  the  Lord  and  he  had  spoken  these 
things  unto  her." 

It  does  not  appear  that  Mary  met  with  any  of  her  female 
companions  after  she  left  them  early  in  the  morning  at  the 
sepulchre  to  go  in  search  of  John  and  Peter.  It  is  not  pro- 
bable she  remained  long  at  the  sepulchre  after  the  Lord  dis- 
appeared from  her  view.  Peter  and  John  had  left  the  place 
not  long  before,  and  perhaps  were  still  on  their  way  return- 
ing to  their  home.-  It  would  be  natural  to  suppose  that  she 
hastened  as  she  did  before  in  search  of  them,  to  communicate 
the  joyful  news  and  correct  the  false  impression  she  had  made 
by  her  too  hasty  conjecture;  which,  nevertheless,  had  been 
confirmed  by  their  own  observations.  Whether  she  overtook 
them,  or  where  or  to  whom  she  first  delivered  the  Saviour's 
message,  we  are  not  informed.     We  have  reason  to  suppose, 

*  Chancellor  D'Aguesseau,  born  at  Limoges,  France,  Nov.  27tli,  1668,  one  of 
the  most  illustrious  men  of  the  age  in  which  he  lived,  makes  the  following  reflec- 
tions on  this  passage:  "Un  Dieu  se  faisant  homme,  a  fait  les  hommes  Dieux. 
II  s'est  abaisse  vers  nous  pour  nous  elever  jusqu'a.  lui  et  etablir  par  Ik — toute 
proportion  gardee — une  esp6ce  d'egalite  entre  lui  et  nous.  (See  Notes  on  John 
xvii.  20 — 24,  where  this  idea  is  developed.)  C'est  pour  cela,  que  dans  le  m6me 
endroit  il  appelle  les  ap6tres  ses  frdres — propter  qiiam  causam  non  confiinditur 
eosfratrcs  vocnre  (Heb.  ii.  11)  dit  St.  Paul.  II  accomplit  ainsi  et  d6s  ce  moment 
la  prophetie  de  David.  Narrabo  nomen  tuum  fratribus  vieis.  Y  a-t-il  rien  de 
plus  consolant  pour  les  Chretiens,  que  d'apprendre  qu'ils  ont  un  m6me  Dieu  et 
un  m6me  pore  que  Jesus-Christ,  et  qu'ils  sont  ses  freres :  C'est  un  eifet  de  la 
bonte  extreme  et  toute  divine  du  fils  de  Dieu  d'appeller  ainsi,  dans  I'etat  de  sa 
puissance  ceux  meme,  qui  I'avoient  abandonne  dans  les  jours  de  son  humilia- 
tion et  de  ses  souifrances.  Les  Divines  Ecritures,  retentissent  par  tout  de  cette 
verite  consolante.  St.  Paul  nous  fait  souvenir  dans  toutes  ses  epitres,  non  seule- 
ment  que  nous  sommes  les  heritiers  d'un  Dieu  vivant  dans  le  ciel  afin  de  niepri- 
ser  les  choses  de  la  terre,  mais  encore,  que  nous  sommes  les  co-heritiers  d'un 
Dieu  mort  en  croix  afin  de  ne  pas  refuser  de  mourir  avec  lui  sur  la  n6tre.  Ipse 
spiritus  testimonium  reddit  spiritui  nostro  quod  sumus  filii  Dei.  Si  mitem  filii  et 
hceredes ;  hceredes  quidem  Dei,  cohceredes  autem  Christi.  Quelle  religion,  quelle 
philosophic  a  jamais  enseigne  une  doctrine,  si  sublime,  si  gloi-ieiise,  si  pr^cieuse 
pour  I'homme?" 


MARY  COMMUNICATES   WITH   THE    DISCIPLES.  477 

however  that  Cleopas  and  his  companion  had  not  heard  it  when 
they  set  out  for  Emmaus:  for  they  spoke  only  of  the  appear- 
ance of  the  angels  to  the  other  women.  Luke  xxiv.  22,  23. 
Hence  we  infer  that  the  Lord's  appearance  to  Mary  was  not 
known  to  them,  nor  generally  known  so  early  as  the  appear- 
ance of  the  angels  to  the  women  of  whom  Luke  speaks,  although 
it  might  have  been  known  to  Peter  and  John  even  before  they 
heard  of  the  appearance  of  the  angels.  For  the  Evangelists 
abridge  all  these  various  communications  into  general  expres- 
sions, without  noticing  the  particulars.  We  are  at  liberty 
therefore  to  apply  them  as  other  circumstances  require. 

We  cannot  leave  this  passage  without  saying  that  notwith- 
standing the  indefiniteness  of  this  portion  of  John's  Gospel  in 
respect  to  some  particulars,  there  is  an  air  of  truthfulness  about 
it,  that  cannot  escape  the  observation  of  any  one  accustomed 
to  consider  and  weigh  the  probabilities  of  history.  We  feel 
that  the  narrative  cannot  be  a  fiction — it  is  so  circumstantial, 
so  natural,  even  life-like:  so  consistent  in  all  its  parts,  so  con- 
sonant with  the  characters  of  these  three  disciples,  that  we  want 
no  higher  or .  clearer  internal  marks  of  truth.  Read  verses 
3  and  4 — 6  and  8 ;  how  minute  the  particulars  !  Again :  Read 
verses  5  and  6;  how  consistent  with  what  we  know  of  the 
characters  of  Peter  and  John !  Now  read  verses  14  and  15 ; 
what  more  natural?  The  two  apostles  saw  nothing  erthcr  of 
the  angels  or  of  the  Lord.  This  is  confessed.  The  solitary 
witness  of  this  wonder  was  a  lone  woman,  whose  excited  feelings 
or  heated  imagination  skeptics  would  say  misled  her.  Yet  they 
name  her  as  the  witness !  Would  a  deceiver  thus  write  ?  We 
think  it  quite  impossible. 

Mark,  to  whom  we  now  turn,  is  a  little  more  particular  in 
some  respects  than  John,  although  his  account  also  is  very 
general.     He  says: 

Mark  xvi.  10,  11.  "  She  [Mary  Magdalen]  went  and  told 
them  that  had  been  with  him,  as  they  mourned  and  wept,  and 
they,  when  they  heard  that  he  was  alive  and  had  been  seen  by 
her,  believed  not." 

If  we  turn  to  Luke  xxiv.  10,  we  observe  that  he  joins  Mary 
Magdalen  with  Joanna  and  Mary  the  mother  of  James,  and 
other  women  as  the  bearers  of  this  news,  without  distinction  of 
times  or  places.  His  object  was,  as  has  been  observed,  to  say 
once  for  all,  and  in  general  terms,  that  the  apostles  received 
information  of  the  occurrences  at  the  sepulchre  from  the  women. 
He  does  not  therefore  contradict  John  or  Mark.* 


*  Some  commentators  suppose  that  Luke  should  be  understood  as  saying, 
that  Mary  Magdalen  and  her  company  conveyed  the  information  before  the 


478  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

It  is  not  probable,  Mark  intends  to  include  among  the  num- 
ber of  persons  he  refers  to,  the  women  who  had  been  at  the 
sepulchre  and  had  seen  the  angels  and  heard  from  them  of  the 
Lord's  resurrection.  These  would  not  be  likely  to  discredit 
Mary's  words:  besides,  the  unmingled  sorrow  in  which  Mary 
found  those  of  whom  he  speaks,  shows  that  they  had  not  yet 
received  any  intimation  of  the  joyful  event.  It  is  probable, 
therefore,  that  Mark  does  not  include  Peter  or  John  in  the 
number.  But  if,  as  we  have  supposed  probable,  Mary  hastened 
first  after  Peter  and  John  and  told  them,  and  afterwards  others, 
we  see  why  John  should  not  add  as  Mark  does,  "they  believed 
not,"  because  it  is  probable  John  did  believe,  or  if  not,  that 
both  he  and  Peter  Avere  prepared  by  what  they  had  seen,  to 
give  credit  to  her  words.  Accordingly  on  hearing  this  second 
communication  of  Mary,  as  we  suppose, 

Luke  xxiv.  12.  "Peter  arose  and  ran"  again  "to  the  sepul- 
chre, and  stooping  down  he  beheld  the  linen  clothes  laid  by 
themselves,"  as  he  had  seen  them  before,  "and  departed  won- 
dering in  himself  at  that  which  was  come  to  pass." 

Some  commentators  suppose  that  Luke  here  refers  to  the 
visit  which  Peter  made  to  the  sepulchre  in  company  with  John. 
John  XX.  3.  Others  maintain  that  Peter  made  two  visits  to  the 
sepulchre  that  morning — the  first  in  company  with  John,  and 
the  oth&r  alone.  The  question  cannot  be  determined  with  cer- 
tainty.    We  incline  to  the  latter  opinion.* 

On  this  assumption,  we  conclude  that  Luke  refers  to  the  visit 
of  Peter,  which  was  generally  best  known,  and  that  John, 
writing  at  a  later  period,  and  intending  to  supplement  Luke, 
relates  an  earlier  visit,  when  he  was  Peter's  companion.  From 
what  we  know  of  Peter's  character,  there  is  nothing  incredible 
in  the  supposition  that  Mary's  account  of  the  appearance  of 
the  Lord  to  her  should  determine  him  instantly  to  make  a 
second  visit.     It  was  just  like  him  to  do  so.     We  add;  it  is 

other  women;  at  least  that  some  of  them  did  so,  to  some  of  the  apostles. 
Hence  they  translate  the  aorist  ixgyov,  verse  10,  as  a  pluperfect,  and  the  -whole 
verse  somewhat  in  this  way:  "But  there  were  others  who  had  already  told 
these  things  to  the  apostles,  namely,  Mary  Magdalen,  Joanna,  Mary  the 
mother  of  James,  and  other  women  who  were  with  them."  That  is  to  say, 
these  women  had  conveyed  the  information  they  possessed  to  the  apostles,  or 
some  of  them,  before  those  Galilean  women,  spoken  of  in  the  preceding  con- 
text, returned  from  the  sepulchre  to  the  city.     See  notes  on  Matt,  xxviii.  2. 

*  Some  regard  this  verse  in  Luke  as  an  interpolation  made  from  John's 
Gospel.  They  say  it  is  not  contained  in  some  of  the  most  authoritative  MSS. 
The  language  is  similar,  and  looks,  it  is  said,  as  though  it  had  been  copied 
from  John.  But  there  is  nothing  incredible  in  the  fact  that  similar  words  should 
be  employed,  even  by  diiferent  writers,  to  express  the  same  ideas,  nor  in  the 
supposition  that  Peter  made  two  visits.  Besides,  no  part  of  the  commonly 
received  text  ought  to  be  rejected,  except  upon  the  most  convincing  evidence 
of  spuriousness. 


MARY  AND   HER   COMPANIONS   WORSHIP  JESUS.  479 

not  improbable  that  the  Lord  appeared  to  Peter  on  this  second 
visit,  either  when  he  was  alone  at  the  sepulchre  or  on  his  return 
from  it.  When  should  we  anticipate  such  a  gracious  manifesta- 
tion to  Peter  alone,  if  not  on  such  an  occasion  ?  Luke,  it  is 
true,  does  not  mention  the  fact  in  connection  with  the  visit  of 
which  he  speaks.*  The  interview  was  secret  and  mysterious, 
and  the  Holy  Spirit  has  cast  a  veil  over  it.  Only  incidentally 
it  is  mentioned,  as  an  isolated  fact,  by  Luke  and  Paul.  Luke 
xxiv.  34;  1  Cor.  xv.  5. 

The  Lord  having  appeared  to  Mary  Magdalen,  appeared 
again  soon  after  to  Mary  the  mother  of  James  and  her  com- 
panions, on  their  return  to  the  city.  It  is  probable  both  were 
proceeding  to  the  city  at  the  same  time,  though  not  in  com- 
pany; and,  if  we  follow  the  order  of  Luke's  narrative,  both 
came  to  the  apostles  before  Peter  arose  to  make  his  second  visit 
to  the  sepulchre.  As  some  harmonists  suppose,  however,  Mary 
Magdalen  first  came  to  the  apostles,  or  some  of  them ;  then 
the  Galilean  women,  of  whom  Luke  speaks,  arrived;  and  soon 
after  them,  Mary  the  mother  of  James  and  her  party.  We 
return  now  to 

Matt,  xxviii.  9,  10.  "And  as  they  [that  Is,  Mary  the 
mother  of  James  and  her  companions]  went  to  tell  his  disciples, 
behold,  Jesus  met  them,  saying.  All  hail.  And  they  came  and 
held  him  by  the  feet  and  worshipped  him.  Then  said  Jesus 
unto  them :  Be  not  afraid.  Go  tell  my  brethren,  that  they  go 
into  Galilee.     There  shall  they  see  me." 

According  to  Mark,  the  angel  whom  they  had  seen  at  the 
sepulchre  bade  them  tell  the  same  thing  to  the  disciples,  and 
particularly  to  Peter.  Mark  xvi.  7. 

This  especial  reference  to  Peter,  if  the  message  were  given 
to  him  at  the  time  we  have  supposed,  would  naturally  embolden 
as  well  as  encourage  him  to  seek  an  interview  with  the  Lord, 
even  before  going  to  Galilee.  But  without  dwelling  on  this 
point,  which  cannot  be  determined  with  certainty,  we  pass  to 
notice  how  entirely  the  manner  and  address  of  the  Saviour  dis- 
pelled the  fears  of  these  women,  and  the  full  and  confident 
belief  they  had  of  the  reality  of  his  person.  How  different 
were  the  emotions  of  the  apostles,  when,  on  the  evening  of 

*  We  notice  a  similar  omission  in  Luke  i.  20.  He  there  tells  us  only  that 
Zacharias  was  punished  for  his  incredulity  with  dumbness.  And  yet  it  is  plain 
from  verse  62  that  he  was  deprived  of  hearing  also :  a  fact  brought  in  inciden- 
tally, out  of  place,  to  complete  the  narrative.  The  English  reader,  however, 
should  be  informed  that  the  word  (jwxfsc)  translated  speechless  in  verse  22,  pro- 
perly signifies  deaf  as  well  as  dumb;  so  that  this  supplementary  fact  is  sup- 
plied earlier  than  would  be  supposed  from  our  translation.  This  is  an  instance 
in  which  Luther  and  the  translators  of  the  authorized  version  have  been  unduly 
influenced  by  the  Latin  Vulgate,  which  renders  xai^of  by  muius. 


480.  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

that  day,  shortly  after  the  return  of  Cleopas  and  his  companion 
from  Eramaus,  Jesus  appeared  in  the  midst  of  them.  Luke 
xxiv.  36,  37,  41.  We. account  for  the  difference  by  the  manner 
in  which  he  made  his  appearance.  In  the  case  of  these  women, 
he  approached  them  as  a  stranger  might  do,  who  chanced  to  be 
walking  the  same  way.  By  his  salutation  simply  he  makes 
himself  perfectly  known  to  them.  They  fall  at  his  feet,  wor- 
shipping, and  embraced  them,  which  he  now  permits.  They 
feel  no  doubt  of  the  reality  and  the  identity  of  his  person.  He 
gives  them  no  other  proof,  and  disappears  from  their  view,  but 
how  soon,  or  in  what  manner,  as  in  the  case  of  his  appearance 
to  Mary,  we  are  not  informed. 

We  have  already  remarked  upon  the  difference  between  the 
messages  he  sent  to  his  brethren  by  Mary  Magdalen  and  by 
these  women:  the  one  related  to  his  ascension  to  the  Father, 
the  other  to  his  appearance  in  Galilee.  Why  did  he  not  send 
the  same  message  to  his  brethren  by  these  women  as  he  had  by 
Mary  Magdalen?  The  reason  we  suggest  is,  that  he  had  in 
the  meantime  ascended  to  the  Father,  and  fulfilled  the  typical 
import  of  the  entering  of  the  High  Priest  within  the  veil.  See 
notes  on  John  xx.  17. 

It  is  commonly  taken  for  granted  that  our  Lord's  first 
ascension  into  heaven  was  that  particularly  described  in  Acts 
i.  9,  after  having  been  seen  by  his  disciples  forty  days.  Yet 
on  the  evening  of  the  day  he  arose  he  spoke  of  himself  as  no 
longer  a  proper  inhabitant  of  the  earth  in  his  human  person. 
Luke  xxiv  44.  Nor  can  it  be  denied  that  he  appeared  and 
disappeared,  from  time  to  time,  under  such  circumstances  as 
were  wholly  new  and  strange,  and  in  no  way  agreeable  to  the 
state  of  his  body  and  behaviour  while  he  was  truly  and  properly 
an  inhabitant  of  the  earth.  Hence  we  may  infer  that  he  was 
during  that  period  ordinarily  an  inhabitant  of  the  heavenly 
world.  Eph.  iii.  20,  During  the  ancient  economy,  though  not 
then  incarnate,  he  frequently  appeared,  as  the  Angel  Jehovah, 
in  a  visible  form,  to  patriarchs  and  other  holy  men;  much  in 
the  same  way  he  appeared  during  these  forty  days  to  his 
disciples.  And  why  should  his  ascension  be  delayed  for  the 
purpose  of  exhibiting  his  risen  body  to  his  disciples?  Acts 
x.  40,  41.  Why  could  he  not  appear  to  them  from  heaven  as 
he  afterwards  did  to  Paul  ?  Is  there  any  text  which  proves 
that  his  risen  body  was  locally  confined  to  the  earth  during  all 
this  time?  The  question  can  be  resolved  only  by  the  testimony 
of  the  sacred  writers. 

We  have  already  considered  the  reason  why  our  Lord 
forbade  Mary  to  touch  his  person.  As  it  seems  to  us,  the 
words  of  our  Lord  are  not  intelligible  except  upon  the  sup- 


THE  WATCH  COMMUNICATE  WITH  THE  HIGH  PRIESTS.      481 

position  that  he  then  was  about  to  ascend  to  the  Father, 
which  Paul  explains,  Heb.  ix.  24,  ascending  into  heaven  itself. 
But  Avhether  this  means  that  he  ascended  far  above  all  heavens, 
Eph.  iv.  10,  or  that  he  passed  through  all  heavens,  Heb.  iv.  14, 
or  that  he  ascended  higher  than  the  heavens,  Heb.  vii.  26,  are 
questions  into  which  we  need  not  inquire.  We  know  not  where 
the  place  denoted  by  the  Saviour's  words  may  be,  nor  do  we 
suppose  that  the  proper  interpretation  of  them  depends  upon 
any  such  considerations. 

Yet  it  is  probable  that  inadequate  and  even  low  conceptions 
of  the  Saviour's  power,  have  had  a  determining  influence  upon 
commentators  in  interpreting  these  words.  Insensibly  we  are 
influenced  by  the  idea  of  difficulty  and  distance,  as  though  it 
would  require  effort  and  time  for  the  risen  Saviour  to  ascend 
to  and  return  from  the  Father.  Such  impressions  are  erro- 
neous, and  would  not  be  entertained  a  moment  if  we  could  con- 
ceive adequately  of  the  attributes  with  which  our  Lord  invested 
his  risen  human  body.  We  know  that  it  is  the  most  wonderful, 
the  most  perfect  work  of  his  almighty  power  and  infinite  skill 
— the  tabernacle  of  his  omnipotence.  It  is  neither  unreason- 
able nor  unscriptural  to  believe  that  he  who  gave  to  the  light 
its  velocity,  and  to  the  lightning  its  power,  would  impart  to  his 
risen  and  regenerated  human  body,  power  transcending  im- 
measurably all  the  powers  of  created  natures,  so  as  to  make  it 
the  fit  instrument  of  his  infinite  purposes.  To  him  the  uni- 
verse, vast  beyond  our  conceptions  as  it  is,  lies  open  to 
his  view,  and  is  accessible  at  his  will.  Its  remotest  extremes 
are  to  him  like  adjacent  apartments  in  the  Father's  house. 
John  xiv.  2;  Heb.  iii.  4;  John  xvi.  28;  iii.  13;  Prov.  xxx.  4. 
Who  that  believes  in  the  Divine  nature  of  the  Lord  Jesus  can 
doubt  his  power  to  appear  at  any  moment  in  any  part  of  the 
universe  he  governs  ?  To  ascend  to  the  Father,  to  enter  into 
the  upper  sanctuary,  within  the  veil,  into  heaven  itself,  required 
of  him,  not  effort,  not  -time,  but  only  the  will  to  do  it.  To 
return  from  thence  to  the  women,  as  they  were  going  from 
the  sepulchre  to  the  city,  was  no  more  to  him  than  to  pass 
from  the  garden  of  Joseph  to  the  place  where  he  met  them. 
We  now  proceed  to  another  testimony,  recorded  only  by 
Matthew;  we  mean  the  testimony  of  the  watch,  or  military 
guard,  to  the  high  priests. 

About  the  time  the  first  party  of  women  returned,  or  it  may 
be,  while  they  were  on  their  way. 

Matt,  xxviii.  11.  "  Some  of  the  watch  going  into  the  city, 
showed  to  the  high  priests  all  things  that  were  done." 

How  many  persons  composed  the  watch  we  are  not  informed, 
nor  do  we  know  how  many  of  their  number  went  to  the  high 


482  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTUKE. 

priests.  The  Evangelist's  words  would  be  made  good  if  only 
those  of  the  watch  went  who  were  in  command.  They  went 
only  to  the  chief  priests,  Annas  and  Caiaphas,  (probably  to  the 
palace,)  and  communicated  to  them  the  things  w^hich  had 
occurred.  At  what  time  they  went  is  not  stated,  but  we  may 
reasonably  infer  that  it  was  after  sunrise.  Where  the  watch 
remained  during  the  interval  is  an  inquiry  which  we  cannot 
resolve.  These  minute  particulars  are  not  important,  and  for 
that  reason  have  not  been  recorded.  Nor  do  we  know  the 
especial  matter  of  their  communication.  While,  on  the  one 
hand,  the  terrors  of  the  scene  had  bereft  them  of  the  power 
of  minute  observation,  they  were  by  the  same  cause  most 
thoroughly  convinced  of  the  presence  of  Divine  power,  and 
able  to  exculpate  themselves  from  all  blame.  The  emergency 
required  prompt  action.     Accordingly, 

Matt,  xxviii.  12 — 14.  "They  [viz.  the  high  priests]  as- 
sembled with  the  elders,  and  having  consulted  together,  gave 
the  soldiers  large  money." 

The  body  which  was  thus  convened,  composed  the  Sanhedrim 
or  Council  of  Seventy,  established  by  Moses.  The  same  body 
is  referred  to  in  Matt.  xxvi.  5.*  It  is  not  improbable  the  sol- 
diers repeated  before  the  assembled  council  the  account  they 
had  given  to  the  chief  priests,  and  were  then  dismissed  to  allow 
an  opportunity  for  private  consultation.  Obviously,  the  mea- 
sure proposed,  in  order  to  be  eifectual,  must  have  embraced  all 
the  soldiers  employed  on  that  duty ;  otherwise,  no  concert  in 
their  falsehood  could  have  been  expected,  nor  any  sufficient 
inducement  to  suppress  the  truth.  Yet  the  details  of  this  pro- 
ceeding are  wholly  omitted.  We  only  know  the  result  of  their 
consultation  and  the  measures  they  adopted. 

Matt,  xxviii.  13.  "Saying:  Say  ye  his  disciples  came  by 
night  and  stole  him  while  we  slept." 

"  Say  ye" — to  whom  ? — to  Pilate  the  governor  ?  The  severity 
of  the  military  discipline  of  the  Romans  renders  the  supposition 
exceedingly  improbable.  We  can  scarcely  believe  the  soldiers 
would  voluntarily  say  to  their  commander  that  they  slept  on 
their  post  and  allowed  the  body  to  be  stolen  which  they  had 
been  set  to  guard.  Even  if  Pilate  did  not  regard  the  service 
as  an  important  one,  he  would,  nevertheless,  regard  their  neglect 
of  it  a  serious  breach  of  duty,  severely  punishable.  The  mean- 
ing of  the  priests,  as  we  infer  from  the  two  verses  following, 
was  that  the  soldiers  should  give  this  out  to  the  people — the 

*  The  word  (trui'a;^6svT«c)  assembled  may  be  construed  in  connection  with  the 
word  {Ttm)  some  ot  the  watch.  The  original  is  somewhat  indefinite,  and 
indeed  is  not  grammatically  exact,  yet  such  language  as  an  uncultivated  writer 
TTOuld  very  naturally  employ. 


THE    SOLDIERS    BRIBED.  48^ 

Jewish  public  at  Jerusalem.  But  how?  By  a  direct  and  bold 
avowal  of  their  own  delinquency?  Such  an  avowal,  perhaps, 
would  not  have  accomplished  the  object  so  certainly  as  an  indi- 
rect method.  We  suppose  they  were  rather  to  hint  it  from 
time  to  time  as  opportunity  occurred,  so  as  to  give  occasion 
of  suspicion  against  themselves  rather  than  to  be  open  self- 
accusers.  In  this  way  a  rumour  among  the  people  would  be 
excited,  which  might  come  to  the  hearing  of  Pilate.  The  art- 
fulness of  the  priests  consisted,  in  the  judgment  of  some  com- 
mentators, not  so  much  in  the  invention  of  the  falsehood  as  in 
their  contrivance  for  its  diiFusion ;  while  others,  not  perceiving 
this,  find  nothing  but  a  gross  inconsistency  in  the  report  itself, 
•which  stamps  it  as  a  palpable  falsehood.  "Did  the  soldiers 
sleep?  How  then  could  they  know  the  disciples  stole  the 
body?  Did  they  see  the  disciples  take  it  away?  How  then 
could  they  be  asleep?" 

Such  an  interpretation  greatly  underrates  the  malicious  inge- 
nuity of  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrim;  so  much  so,  as  to 
reflect  upon  the  credibility  of  the  Evangelist.  We  cannot 
easily  believe,  that  these  astute,  crafty  men,  after  having 
resolved  to  propagate  a  falsehood  as  the  only  means  of  extri- 
cating themselves  from  discredit  with  the  people,  would  contrive 
one  palpably  contradictory  in  itself.  Probably  the  priests  and 
elders  in  secret  council,  resolved  to  fall  back  on  the  suggestion 
they  made  to  Pilate,  as  the  reason  why  he  should  order  a  guard 
to  be  stationed  at  the  sepulchre.  Matt,  xxvii.  63,  64,  and  pre- 
tend that  what  they  feared  had  been  realized,  notwithstanding 
the  precaution  Pilate  had  adopted.  In  this  way  they  compli- 
mented their  own  sagacity,  as  well  as  maintained  consistency. 
Not  being  there  themselves,  they  could  not  be  supposed  to 
know  of  their  own  knowledge,  whether  it  was  through  the  wdlful 
connivance  or  negligence  of  the  guard  that  the  mischief  hap- 
pened, but  they  insisted  no  doubt,  that  in  one  or  the  other  way 
it  must  have  happened;  the  latter  supposition  might  be  ad- 
mitted as  the  most  charitable.  As  for  a  dead  man  coming  to 
life,  and  coming  out  of  a  sepulchre  so  securely  closed — the  idea 
is  preposterous !  This,  or  something  of  this  tenor,  the  priests 
would  very  probably  say.  Then,  to  guard  against  any  contra- 
dictory statement  from  the  soldiers,  they  bribed  them  to  let  the 
aflFair  take  the  course  suggested,  rather  favouring  it  by  inuendoes 
and  a  suppression  of  the  truth.  Thus  arranged,  the  rulers  on 
the  one  hand  might  say,  "What  we  foresaw  and  forewarned  the 
governor  against,  and  earnestly  besought  him  to  prevent,  not- 
withstanding all  our  pains,  actually  occurred.  His  disciples 
came  by  night  and  stole  the  body  away :  a  thing  which  could 
not  have  happened  if  the  guard  had  been  faithful.     How  it 


484  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTUKE. 

happened  they  best  know.  The  most  charitable  supposition  is, 
that  they  fell  asleep,  and  the  disciples,  watching  their  oppor- 
tunity, opened  the  sepulchre  and  purloined  the  body." 

The  soldiers  played  their  part  in  the  deception,  as  we  may 
suppose,  not  by,  denying,  but  by  ambiguous  conduct,  rather 
confirming  the  bold  assertions  of  the  priests  and  rulers.  How 
easy,  how  natural  was  it  for  them  to  say,  confidentially 
to  some  friend,  that  not  supposing  any  person  would  dare  to 
come  to  a  place  thus  guarded  at  the  dead  hour  of  the  night, 
and  believing  that  the  apprehension  of  any  attempt  to  steal 
the  body  was  quite  preposterous,  they  were  not  so  watchful 
as  perhaps  they  ought  to  have  been ;  and,  in  fact,  that  drowsi- 
ness might  have  overtaken  them  while  each  depended  on  the 
vigilance  of  the  others,  and  while  they  were  in  that  condition 
the  disciples  might  have  taken  the  body  without  their  knowing 
it.  An  explanation  of  this  sort,  made  in  confidence,  would 
almost  certainly  be  repeated,  with  additions  at  each  repetition, 
till  it  would  pass  from  mouth  to  mouth  among  the  common 
people  as  a  positive  fact.  It  requires  but  little  observation  of 
human  nature,  to  perceive  how  an  effect  of  this  kind  could  be 
accomplished.  The  tendency  of  the  popular  mind  to  ex- 
aggerate and  falsify  even  true  accounts  is  proverbial.  To  this 
natural  disposition  or  vice  of  the  human  heart  the  priests  and 
rulers  appealed,  as  we  suppose,  substantially,  if  not  circum- 
stantially, in  the  way  suggested,  in  order  to  extricate  them- 
selves from  the  serious  difiiculty  in  which  the  truth  would 
have  involved  them.  The  contrivance  answered  the  purpose, 
for  the  time,  of  parrying  the  shock  which  the  unvarnished 
truth  would  have  made  on  the  public.  Yet,  if  we  reflect  but  a 
little  on  the  circumstances,  the  extreme  improbability,  if  not 
impossibility  of  the  report,  will  be  apparent.  How  improbable 
it  is  that  all  the  soldiers,  were  there  only  three  of  them,  should 
have  been  asleep  at  the  same  time,  and  so  profoundly  that 
neither  -of  them  should  have  been  awakened  by  the  noise  made 
by  the  rolling  away  of  the  large  stone — the  bringing  forth  of 
the  body  after  liberating  it  from  the  bandages  in  which  it  was 
wrapped  up !  Again,  only  a  few  hours  before,  all  the  disciples 
had  fled  through  fear,  glad  to  escape  with  their  lives.  They 
convened  secretly  with  closed  doors,  as  companions  in  sorrow 
and  misfortune,  but  so  far  as  we  know,  for  no  other  reason. 
They  had  given  up  all  hope  in  Jesus  as  Messiah.  They  had 
even  embalmed  his  body  to  preserve  it  a  little  while  from  cor- 
ruption, and  others,  not  knowmg  that  it  had  been  done,  pre- 
pared spices,  and  came  to  the  sepulchre  to  do  it. 

Again,  if  we  contrast  the  conduct  of  the  apostles  and  that 
of  their  rulers  during  the  three  days  just  closed,  with  their 


PROMISES  OF  PROTECTION  TO  THE   SOLDIERS.  485 

conduct,  respectively,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  and  the  days 
following  it,  we  shall  find  it  quite  impossible  to  give  credit 
to  such  a  report,  even  for  a  moment.  For  then  these  timid 
disciples  came  boldly  before  the  people  in  the  temple,  at 
Jerusalem,  and  in  the  face  of  the  rulers  preached  the  resur- 
rection of  Jesus.  They  boldly  charged  them  with  the  murder 
of  Jesus,  the  Holy  One,  and  the  Just,  and  the  Prince  of 
life.  No  attempt  was  made  by  the  priests  and  rulers  to 
disprove  their  assei'tion.  On  the  contrary,  thousands  of  the 
common  people,  and  a  great  many  priests,  fully  believed 
the  fact,  and  joined  the  apostles.  To  this  proof  we  shall  return 
hereafter. 

Matt,  xxviii.  14.  "  And  if  this  shall  come  to  the  governor's 
ears,  [rather  before  the  governor,']  we  will  persuade  him  and 
secure  you." 

This  promise  was  in  addition  to  the  gift  of  money.  It  proves 
that  the  soldiers  were  rather  to  conceal  the  matter  from  the 
governor  than  to  declare  it  to  him.  There  were  chances  that 
the  governor  would  not  hear  it,  for  he  commonly  resided  at 
Cnesarea  Palestina ;  and  if  he  should  not  hear  it,  they  would  be 
safe;  but  if  the  rumour  should  reach  him,  and  he  should  take 
judicial  notice  of  their  delinquency,  then  they  promise  to  per- 
suade, or  win  him  over  to  their  side.  What  means  they  intended 
to  employ  they  do  not  say.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  they  would 
be  so  unwise  as  to  tell  the  soldiers  in  plain  terms  that  they 
would  {-ecdscv*  dp-fupuo  vel  ip-qiiaai)  bribe  him,  which  was  no 
doubt  their  purpose.  They  knew  the  character  of  Pilate.  He 
is  represented  by  contemporary  authors  as  most  unjust,  avari- 
cious, and  venal.  He  had  committed  innumerable  robberies  and 
other  acts  of  flagrant  injustice.  With  him,  everything  was  ac- 
counted right  which  was  profitable  to  his  purse.  Nothing  could 
be  easier  than  to  persuade  such  a  judge  and  secure  the  soldiers 
against  his  displeasure. 

Matt,  xxviii.  15.  "  So  they  [the  soldiers]  took  the  money 
and  did  as  they  were  taught;  and  this  saying  is  commonly  re- 
ported among  the  Jews  until  this  day." 

This  Evangelist  wrote  his  Gospel,  it  is  probable,  about  the 
year  a.  d.  41. 

Until  that  time,  the  report  was  common  among  the  unbeliev- 
ing Jews  of  Palestine.  He  gives  us  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
Pilate,  or  the  Romans,  or  any  Gentile  nation  ever  gave  credit 
to  it.  On  the  contrary,  if  we  may  believe  Justin  Martyr, 
Afol.  II.,  Tertullian,  A-pol.  cap.  v.  21,  and  Eusehius^  lib.  ii. 
cap  ii.,  Pilate  wrote  to  Tiberius  such  an  account  of  the  life  and 

*  A  euphemism  to  express  a  sinister  purpose,  or  rather  to  cover  it  up. 


486  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 

miracles  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  that  he  was  willing  to  have 
the  Senate  decree  Divine  honours  to  him.  Eusehius  intimates 
that  Pilate  spoke  of  his  resurrection  and  ascension.  But  the 
unbelieving  Jews  took  great  pains  to  spread  and  perpetuate  this 
false  report  among  their  own  people,  as  is  proved  by  the  writings 
of  their  Rabbins.  The  Evangelist  does  not  inform  us,  in  ex- 
press terms,  what  account  the  assembled  priests  and  elders 
agreed  upon  in  their  meeting,  but  only  upon  what  they  desired 
the  soldiers  to  say.  We  have  conjectured  that  they  fell  back 
upon  the  suspicion  they  expressed  to  Pilate,  which  they  may 
have  moulded  into  the  story  contained  in  a  very  blasphemous 
book  called  Toledoth  Jeschu^^  the  absurdity  of  which,  as  it 
seems  to  those  who  have  the  New  Testament,  appears  from  the 
fact  that  it  ascribes  the  theft  of  the  Lord's  body  to  Judas  Isca- 
riot,  who  told  it  to  one  of  their  sages,  and  by  that  means  they 
discovered  the  body,  after  it  had  been  stolen,  under  the  bed  of 
a  river  or  stream  where  it  had  been  secreted. 

But  even  this  story  tends  to  establish  the  truth  of  Matthew's 
narrative ;  for  it  admits  the  fact  that  the  sepulchre,  after  having 
been  thus  secured,  was  found  empty.  Yet  it  was  quite  impossi- 
ble for  the  friends  of  Jesus  to  purloin  the  body,  for  the  reasons 
already  suggested.  How,  then,  can  we  account  for  the  admitted 
fact  except  as  the  Evangelist  does?  And  if  he  arose  from  the 
dead,  what  more  probable  than  that  the  rulers — his  enemies — 
to  save  their  credit  with  the  people,  should  invent  such  a  fable? 
We  now  return  to  the  other  appearances  of  the  Lord  on  this 
eventful  day.     Turning  to  Mark  we  find, 

Mark  xvi.  12,  "that  after"  his  appearance  to  Mary  "he  ap- 
peared in  another  form  (iv  krzpa  iJ-opiprf)  unto  two  of  them  as 
they  walked  and  went  into  the  country." 

This  is  a  very  brief  and  general  account  of  an  appearance 
which  Luke  records  more  at  length,  which  we  shall  next  notice. 
By  another  form,  Mark  means  a  form  different  from  that  in 
which  he  appeared  to  Mary,  or  in  a  form  different  from  that  he 
bore  during  his  personal  ministry.  Mark  leaves  us  to  infer  that 
these  two  recognized  him,  because,  he  says,  they  went  and  told 
it  to  the  residue.  But  he  does  not  tell  us  when  or  how,  or  what 
passed  between  them,  nor  to  what  place  they  were  going.  Some 
commentators  suppose  the  change  in  his  appearance  arose  from 
the  change  of  his  dress ;  that  there  was,  in  fact,  no  change  in 
his  person.     Others  inquire  whether  his  dress  was  not  visionary, 

*  The  principal  pai't,  if  not  the  whole  of  this  book,  is  transcribed  into  Eisen- 
menger's  Entdecktes  Judenthum,  see  vol.  i.  p.  189,  and  translated  into  German. 
It  is  also  published  in  Wagenseil's  Tela  Ifpica  Satance.  It  is  said  the  Jews 
have  the  custom  to  read  this  book  in  their  houses  on  Christmas  eve,  in  order 
to  dishonour  Christ  and  teach  their  children  to  blaspheme. 


THE   WALK   TO   EMMAUS.  487 

and  if  not,  how,  when,  or  where  he  procured  it ;  whether  he 
created  it,  or  received  it  from  an  angel ;  whether  it  was  the 
dress  he  wore  before  he  suffered?  Such  inquiries  cannot  be 
resolved  by  the  text,  nor  would  they  shed  light  on  the  way  of 
salvation  if  they  could  be.  In  connection  with  this  text  we 
now  turn  to 

Luke  xxiv.  13.  "And  behold  two  of  them  went  that  same 
day  to  a  village  called  Emmaus,  which  was  from  Jerusalem 
about  three-score  furlongs." 

Luke  here  supplies  us  with  some  particulars  which  Mark 
passed  over.  Cleopas,  he  says,  was  one  of  the  two  disciples, 
and  the  place  in  the  country  they  were  going  to  was  Emmaus, 
a  village  about  seven  and  a  half  or  eight  miles  distant  from 
Jerusalem,  situated,  as  is  supposed,  at  the  north-west,  say 
about  three  hours'  walk  from  the  city. 

Luke  xxiv.  14,  16.  "And  they  talked  together  of  all  these 
things  which  had  happened,  and  it  came  to  pass,  while  they 
communed  and  reasoned,  Jesus  himself  drew  near  and  went 
with  them ;  but  their  eyes  were  holden  that  they  should  not  know 
him." 

This  is  the  first  appearance  of  the  Lord  mentioned  by  Luke, 
being  the  same  as  the  second  mentioned  by  Mark.  It  was  pro- 
bably the  fourth.  Cleopas,  it  is  supposed,  was  otherwise  called 
Alpheus.  He  was  the  husband  of  Mary,  the  sister  of  Mary 
the  mother  of  Jesus,  and  the  father  of  James  the  less,  Matt. 
X.  3;  Luke  vi.  15;  John  xix.  25;  and  of  Joseph  or  Joses. 
His  wife,  consequently,  was  that  other  Mary  who  accompanied 
Mary  Magdalen  early  in  the  morning  to  the  sepulchre.  Matt. 
xxviii.  1;  xxvii.  56,  61.  We  have  seen  that  on  her  return 
from  the  sepulchre  the  Lord  appeared  to  her  and  her  com- 
panion, and  permitted  them  to  embrace  his  feet.  It  is  proba- 
ble, therefore,  that  Cleopas  left  Jerusalem  for  Emmaus  before 
Mary  his  wife  returned  to  the  city  from  the  sepulchre,  or  at 
least  before  he  met  with  her.  He  shared  deeply  in  the  attach- 
ment which  she  bore  to  the  Saviour.  His  countenance,  verse 
17,  showed  his  sadness,  and  his  conversation  the  burden  of  his 
heart,  verse  14.  Had  he  felt  otherwise,  it  is  not  probable  he 
would  have  been  thus  favoured. 

The  topics  of  their  conversation,  we  may  safely  infer,  were 
those  enumerated  in  verses  19 — 24:  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the 
greatest  of  the  prophets;  the  sin  and  folly  of  the  priests  and 
rulers  in  procuring  his  crucifixion ;  their  own  disappointed 
hopes ;  the  startling  report  of  the  women  who  were  early  at  the 
sepulchre ;  the  confirmation  of  it  in  part  by  some  of  their  male 
companions.     What  themes ! 

While  they  were  communing  and  reasoning,  Jesus  drew  near, 


488  NOTES  ON   SCRIPTURE. 

in  the  guise  of  a  stranger,  and  walked  along  with  them.  Mark, 
we  have  seen,  intimates  that  his  form  was  changed.  Luke  inti- 
mates that  an  effect  was  produced  upon  their  vision.  Both 
amount  to  the  same  thing,  for  both  describe  the  cause  from  the 
effect,  which  might  be  produced  by  the  Divine  power  in  many 
ways,  but  in  what  way  could  not  be  known  except  by  revela- 
tion, which  in  this  matter  appears  to  have  been  withheld,^as  not 
important  or  not  proper  to  be  known.  But  do  we  inquire  why 
on  this  occasion,  and  to  these  disciples  only,  he  exhibited  him- 
self in  this  manner,  and  why  he  designedly  kept  up  their  illu- 
sion until  he  disappeared  from  their  view  ?  Without  attempting 
directly  to  answer  these  questions,  let  us  advert  to  the  effect 
accomplished  by  these  means.  If  we  read  the  whole  passage, 
verses  15 — 32,  we  perceive  that  from  the  instant  of  his  joining 
them,  during  the  whole  journey,  until  he  disappeared  from 
them,  they  were  perfectly  at  ease  with  him  as  with  an  equal. 
Indeed,  Cleopas  at  first  seems  to  assume  some  superiority,  or,  at 
least,  he  seems  to  be  conscious  of  having  the  advantage  by  his 
superior  knowledge  of  current  events.  "Art  thou  only  a 
stranger  in  Jerusalem,  and  yet  dost  not  know  the  things  that 
have  come  to  pass  there  in  these  days?"  This  remark  implies 
a  degree  of  surprise  that  any  person  should  be  so  ignorant  as 
to  ask  the  question  he  was  replying  to,  even  if  he  were  only  a 
stranger  in  Jerusalem. 

Luke  xxiv.  19.  "And  he  said  unto  them,  What  things?" 
Such  a  question  following  upon  the  remark  of  Cleopas  would 
not  only  leave  undisturbed  his  impression  of  his  own  superior 
information,  but  call  forth  a  statement  of  the  subjects  upon 
which  the  Lord  desired  to  instruct  them.  Approaching  them, 
then,  in  this  way,  he  invested  the  interview  with  the  drapery  of 
common  life — kept  their  minds  tranquil  and  open  to  the  instruc- 
tion he  intended  to  impart.  Continuing  with  them  through  the 
greater  part  of  the  way,  as  we  may  infer  from  verse  27  that 
he  did,  he  gave  them  indubitable  proofs  of  the  reality  of  his 
human  person,  which  were  still  further  confirmed  at  the  end  of 
their  journey  by  his  partaking  of  food  with  them,  and  after- 
wards by  his  closing  the  interview  with  an  act  he  had  often 
performed  in  their  presence,  which  instantly  reminded  them  of 
his  person.  Was  it  possible  for  them,  after  such  an  interview, 
under  such  circumstances,  so  long  continued  and  with  such 
proofs  as  they  must  have  had  during  this  long  walk  of  his 
human  bodily  presence,  to  doubt  whether  he  was  truly  a  man 
having  flesh  and  bones,  or  a  mere  spirit?  Their  astonishment 
came  after  the  designed  impression  had  been  made,  and  could 
not  invalidate  the  previous  conviction  of  the  reality  of  his 
bodily  presence.     The  effect  of  a  sudden,  unlooked-for,  miracu- 


ERRONEOUS  VIEWS  OF  CLEOPAS  AND  HIS  COMPANION.       489 

lous  appearance  would  have  been  very  different,  as  we  shall  see 
hereafter. 

Luke  XXIV.  19.  "And  they  said  unto  him,  Concerning 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  which  was  a  prophet  mighty  in  word  and 
deed  before  God  and  all  the  people." 

Cleopas  answered  the  first  question,  and  perhaps  this  ques- 
tion also.  The  answer,  however,  is  ascribed  to  both;  but 
whichever  of  the  two  spoke,  the  record  is  historically  exact.* 

Luke  xxiv.  20,  21.  "And  how  the  chief  priests  and  our 
rulers  delivered  him  to  be  condemned  to  death,  and  have  cruci- 
fied him.  But  we  trusted  that  it  had  been  he  which  should 
have  redeemed  Israel.  And  besides  all  this,  to-day  is  the  third 
day  since  these  things  were  done." 

Observe  the  mixture  of  feeling,  perhaps  we  should  say,  the 
disturbed  or  unsettled  judgment  of  these  attached  disciples. 
Evidently  they  did  not  know  what  to  think  about  these  un- 
looked-for events.  While  they  held  firmly  to  the  belief  that  he 
was  not  only  a  true  prophet,  but  the  greatest  of  the  prophets 
that  had  appeared,  he  was  not  in  other  respects  what  they  took 
him  to  be.  During  his  ministry  they  were  confident  he  was 
the  promised  Messiah,  whose  mission  and  ofiice  would  be  the 
redemption  of  Israel.  But  in  this  they  supposed  they  were 
mistaken;  and  this  expectation,  however  cherished,  was  cut 
off,  so  they  thought,  by  an  ignominious  death.  These  things 
seemed  to  prove,  that  although  he  was  a  true  and  a  very  great 
prophet,  yet  he  was  not  the  Messiah,  the  Redeemer  of  Israel. 
Consequently,  the  national  hope  was  still  longer  to  be  deferred, 
and  Israel  must  yet  remain,  how  long  they  knew  not,  in  bondage 
to  their  enemies.     But  this  was  not  all: 

Luke  xxiv.  22,  2-3.  "  Certain  women  also  of  our  company 
made  us  astonished  who  were  early  f  at  the  sepulchre.     And 

*  While  they  speak  of  the  Lord  Jesus  with  the  greatest  respect,  it  is  remark- 
able that  they  do  aot  give  him  the  higher  title  which  he  claimed — Son  of  God. 
Perhaps  they  thought  it  not  expedient  to  allude  to  such  a  subject  in  conversa- 
tion with  one  whom  they  took  to  be  a  stranger;  or  perhaps  their  own  views  of 
bis  Divine  nature  were  not,  at  that  time,  clearly  defined.  We  observe  also  a 
common  Hebrew  circumlocution,  to  express  the  superlative  degree:  "A 
prophet  mighty  before  God,"  means  a  7)iost  miff ht^  pi-op het,  the  greatest  of  the 
prophets.     See  other  examples  in  Gen.  vi.  11;  x.  9. 

f  'Opbpioi  or  cf&fm;,  from  cpSfo;,  see  verse  1.  TivofAivctt  cfQpiM  is  one  of  thos 
beautiful  classic  expressions  which  we  every  now  and  then  find  in  the  New 
Testament  in  close  connection  with  the  peculiar  idioms  of  Hellenistic  Greek; 
as  in  this  verse,  where  i?ri  with  the  accusative  is  used  for  or^oc,  prope,  near  by; 
and  in  the  next  verse  oTrrsLo-ictv  ayy(\a>y  iu>i>ijtivxt,  which  is  a  Hebrew  pleonasm, 
see  Glassius;  and  in  general  we  may  say  of  the  Gospels  and  apostolical  writings, 
that  the  nature  of  the  subjects  of  which  their  authors  treat,  and  the  state  of 
mind  in  which  they  write,  often  beget  the  most  lofty  conceptions,  and  rhetorical 
figures  not  unworthy  of  the  most  polished  writers. 

62 


490  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

when  they  found  not  his  body,  they  came  saying  that  they  had 
also  seen  a  vision  of  angels,  who  said  that  he  was  alive." 

We  learn  from  verse  11  how  the  report  affected  them.  It 
was  too  incredible  to  be  seriously  considered.  So,  at  least, 
some  of  the  apostles  thought ;  yet  not  all  of  them. 

Luke  xxiv.  24.  "For  certain  of  them  which  were  with  us 
went  to  the  sepulchre,  and  found  it  even  so  as  the  women  had 
said,  but  him  they  saw  not." 

That  is,  they  found  the  stone  rolled  away — the  sepulchre 
open — the  body  gone,  but  they  saw  nothing  more.  How  could 
all  these  things  be  reconciled  ?  How  could  he  be  the  greatest 
of  the  prophets,  and  yet  not  the  Messiah  ?  How  could  he  be 
the  Messiah  and  yet  be  rejected  by  the  chief  priests  and  rulers, 
and  even  put  to  death  with  the  consent,  nay,  upon  the  demand 
of  his  own  people?  John  xii.  34.  Impossible!  And  then 
again,  how  could  he  die  and  be  laid  in  the  sepulchre  until  the 
third  day,  and  after  that  come  to  life  again  ?  And  were  that 
possible,  how  could  it  prove  him  to  be  the  Messiah,  the  Re- 
deemer of  Israel  ?  To  these  difficulties,  especially  the  last,  our 
Lord  addressed  himself. 

Here  we  pause  for  the  present;  first  suggesting  to  the  reader, 
for  his  consideration,  the  question,  "  In  what  respects  were  the 
views  of  these  devoted  and  faithful  disciples  of  the  office  and 
work  of  Christ  erroneous  or  defective?"  That  they  were  so  in 
some  respects  is  evident  from  the  two  following  verses,  but  that 
their  error  consisted  simply  or  chiefly  in  their  expecting  the 
restoration  of  Israel  to  the  land  of  the  covenant,  and  their 
deliverance  from  their  bondage  to  the  nations,  as  many  com- 
mentators suppose,  is  by  no  means  clear. 


CHAPTER   XIII. 

Walk  to  Emmaus. — Prophecies  in  the  books  of  Moses  concerning  Christ. — 
Jewish  custom. — Recognition  of  the  disciples. — New  views  of  the  Prophetic 
Scriptures  obtained  by  them. — The  Lord's  appearance  to  Peter. — Universality 
of  the  belief  of  the  spirit  world. — Christ  with  his  disciples  as  he  was  with 
Abraham  in  the  plain  of  Mamre. — The  disciples  advance  in  knowledge. — A 
new  commission. — Inauguration  of  the  new  dispensation. — Powers  and  gifts 
conferred  on  the  apostles  and  personal  to  them  at  the  opening  of  the  new 
dispensation,  not  transmitted  to  bishops,  elders,  &e.  in  later  years. — The 
Ascension. — Offering  of  divine  worship. 

Luke  xxiv.  25,  26.  "Then  he'  said  unto  them,  0  fools  and 
slow  of  heart  to  believe  all  that  the  prophets  have  spoken." 
0  ye  unthinking,  inconsiderate  men !  How  slow  ye  are  to 
comprehend  the  predictions  of   the  prophets  concerning  the 


ERRONEOUS  VIEWS  OF  CLEOPAS  AND  HIS  COMPANION.      491 

promised  Deliverer  of  Israel?  "Ought  not  Christ  to  have 
suffered  (jradscu)  these  things  and  to  enter  (xai  tiaeXdecv^  to  liave 
entered)  into  his  glory?"*  Was  it  not  Divinely  appointed,  as 
an  indispensable  part  of  the  plan  of  redemption,  (even  of  that 
redemption  of  Israel  in  the  flesh,  to  which  you  ignorantly  limit 
your  expectations  and  your  hopes)  that  the  Christ  should  suffer 
those  very  things,  which  cause  your  doubts  and  your  sorrows, 
before  he  should  enter  into  his  glory,  of  which  (glory)  you  have 
very  low  conceptions? 

That  these  disciples,  loving  and  faithful  as  they  were,  enter- 
tained very  inadequate  views  of  the  dignity,  office,  and  work  of 
Christ,  is  conclusively  proved  by  this  reply.  Yet  the  Lord  had 
frequently  warned  them,  not  only  in  figurative,  but  in  the 
plainest  language,  that  his  personal  ministry  would  end  in  his 
rejection  and  death,  and  that  his  exaltation  and  glory  with  the 
Father  would  follow.  See  Matt.  xvi.  21;  xvii.  22;  xx.  17—19; 
Mark  viii.  31;  ix.  31;  x.  33;  Luke  ix.  22;  xii.  50;  xvii. 
31 — 34;  xxiv.  6,  7;  Matt.  xxvi.  31,  32;  John  xvii.  5.  It  is 
worth  while  to  pause  a  little,  and  consider  how  they  could  thus 
err,  and  wherein  their  error  lay.  The  subject  is  a  large  one. 
In  this  connection  we  can  consider  only  the  principal  points, 
and  those  briefly. 

(L)  According  to  the  common  apprehension  of  the  Jews  of 
our  Lord's  day,  even  of  the  most  spiritually-minded  and  devout, 
the  Messiah  was  to  be  regarded  chiefly  as  the  promised  De- 
liverer of  Israel  from  their  bondage  to  the  Gentiles.  Luke  i. 
68 — 75.  That  there  were  predictions  which  justified  the 
expectations  of  such  a  deliverance,  cannot  reasonably  be 
doubted.  2  Sam.  vii.  10 — 24 ;  1  Chron.  xvii.  9—27 ;  Isa.  i. 
26 ;  Jer.  xxiii.  5,  6;  xxxiii.  7 — 15,  and  20 — 26;  Lev.  xxvi. 
42;  Ps.  xcviii.  3;  cv.  8,  9;  cvi.  44 — 48.  The  promises  made 
to  Abraham,  literally  understood,  included  the  gift  of  the  land 
of  Canaan,  in  which  they,  a  remnant  of  Israel,  then  dwelt, 
with  which  they  connected  their  national  redemption  and  glory. 
See  Gen.  xiii.  14—17;  xv.  18—21;  xvii.  5—8;  xxvi.  2—4; 
xxviii.  10 — 15;  xxii.  16 — 18.  The  Messiah  was  the  promised 
Prince,  through  whom  these  expectations  were  to  be  realized. 
He  was  to  be  a  descendant  of  David,  and  his  right  to  the 
throne  and  the  crown  of  David,  they  expected,  would  be 
devolved  to  him  by  descent  from  that  monarch,  according  to 
the  covenant  God  made  with  him.  His  dominion  and  rule, 
when  once  it  should  begin,  they  expected  and  believed  would 
continue  without  interruption  or  change  for  ever.   John  xiii. 

»  Both  these  verbs  are  aorist,  and  may  with  equal  propriety  be  translated 
by  the  perfect  infinitive. 


492  NOTES   ON   SCKIPTURE. 

84 ;  Ps.  Ixxxix.  36,  37 ;  ex.  4 ;  Isa.  ix.  7 ;  Ezek.  xxxvii.  25  ; 
Dan.  ii.  44;  vii.  14;  Micali  iv.  7.  Thej  believed,  indeed,  that 
Messiah's  kingdom  would  be  terrestrial,  but  in  no  sense  limited 
in  respect  to  the  time  of  its  duration.  Undoubtedly  they  were 
right  in  their  expectation  of  such  a  redemption,  if  the  promises 
made  to  their  fathers  might  be  literally  understood.  That 
Zacharias,  the  father  of  John  the  Baptist,  so  understood  them, 
is  plain  from  his  allusion  to  the  oath  which  God  sware  unto 
Abraham,  Luke  i.  73,  74,  compare  with  Gen.  xvii.  16,  17, 
"  that  he  would  grant  unto  us,  that  we,  being  delivered  out  of 
the  hand  of  our  e7iemies,  might  serve  him  without  fear  in  holi- 
ness and  righteousness  before  him  all  the  days  of  our  life." 
See  2  Sam.  vii.  10;  1  Chron.  xvii.  9.  We  may  add,  that  the 
language  and  conduct  of  our  Lord  himself,  justified  and  con- 
firmed this  national  hope.  See  Acts  i.  6 — 9 ;  Luke  xix. 
37—44;  Mark  xi.  9,  10;  Matt.  xxi.  40;  ii.  2,  3;  John  i.  49, 
50;  Luke  xxii.  29. 

That  there  were  diversities  of  expectations  and  hopes  among 
the  Jews  in  regard  to  the  moral  character  of  their  nation  in  its 
restored  state,  we  cannot  reasonably  doubt.  The  carnal  and 
Avorldly,  it  is  probable,  entertained  low  views  of  the  holiness 
and  purity  of  the  expected  kingdom,  while  the  devout,  like 
Zacharias,  connected  with  the  national  deliverance  holiness  and 
righteousness  in  a  higher  degree  than  the  nation  had  ever  ex- 
hibited.    Luke  i.  75;  Isa.  Ix.  21. 

(2.)  Few,  if  any,  of  the  pious,  excepting  those  who  were 
especially  taught  it  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  had  any  conception  of 
the  means  necessary  to  accomplish  this  redemption  of  Israel 
according  to  the  flesh,  from  their  temporary  subjection  to  the 
Gentiles.  Like  Nicodemus,  they  thought  that  Messiah's  king- 
dom would  be  effectually  brought  nigh  to  the  nation,  just  so 
soon  as  he  should  appear.  No  other  preparation  of  heart,  they 
supposed,  was  necessary,  than  such  as  was  attainable  by  means 
then  within  their  reach.  Here  they  erred:  for  inseparably  con- 
nected with  this  loiver  salvation  or  redemption,  was  their  deliver- 
ance from  sin,  Luke  i.  77 ;  John  viii.  32 — 36,  and  their  perfec- 
tion in  holiness  as  a  nation,  Isa.  Ix.  21;  liv.  13;  liii.  1;  John 
vi.  45;  Ps.  xxxvii.  11,  22;  Matt.  v.  48,  and  these  could  not  be 
attained  consistently  with  the  Divine  plan  except  by  the  suffer- 
ings of  Christ.  To  this  defect  in  their  faith,  as  we  suppose, 
our  Lord  especially  alluded  in  the  words  "ought  not  (the)  Christ 
to  have  suffered?"  &c. 

(3.)  Again;  they  had  no  conception  of  God's  purpose  to 
gather  an  elect  people  or  church  out  of  all  nations,  and  to  exalt 
it  far  above  all  terrestrial  glory  and  bliss,  by  bringing  it  into 
intimate  and  everlasting  union  with  himself,  through  Christ  cru- 


ERRONEOUS  VIEWS  OF  THE  DISCIPLES  ACCOUNTED  FOR.     493 

cifiecl  and  glorified.  This  purpose,  so  far  as  we  can  discover, 
was  first  plainly  disclosed  in  our  Lord's  intercession  witli  the 
Father,  which  the  Evangelist  John  has  recorded,  chap,  xvii., 
for  the  instruction  of  the  Church.  Cleopas  perhaps  had  not 
heard  those  wonderful  words ;  but  if  he  had,  he  did  not  compre- 
hend them ;  for  Paul  speaks  of  this  Divine  purpose  as  a  mystery, 
hid  in  Grod  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  until  it  was  revealed 
to  the  apostles  by  his  Spirit,  Eph.  iii.  1 — 11,  which  was  not 
given  until  after  the  events  we  are  now  considering.  This  is  an 
important  consideration.  It  shows  us  how  we  may  account  for 
the  defective  views  of  the  first  followers  of  Christ,  without 
ascribing  to  them  carnal  and  mere  worldly  hopes.  The  build- 
ing of  such  a  church  involved  most  unexpected  events;  such  as 
the  rejection  of  Israel  according  to  the  flesh  for  a  season.  Matt, 
xxi.  43,  the  opening  of  a  dispensation  of  grace  to  all  nations, 
which  was  to  continue  during  an  undefined  period  of  time,  until 
the  number  of  the  elect,  as  settled  in  the  Divine  purpose,  should 
be  fully  accomplished.  See  notes  on  John  xvii.,  and  notes  on 
Luke  xviii.  7.  They  knew  not  these  things,  simply  because  the 
Spirit  of  God  as  yet  had  not  taught  them.     Eph.  iii.  5. 

(4.)  Moreover,  these  disciples  did  not  understand  God's  pur- 
pose to  redeem  the  earth  itself  from  the  curse  and  restore  it  to 
its  lost  place  in  his  universal  kingdom.  See  notes  on  Matt, 
iii.  2,  and  xix.  28. 

They  limited,  in  fact,  Jehovah's  promises  of  redemption  to 
the  earthly  house  and  throne  of  David,  and  to  the  deliverance 
of  Israel  according  to  the  flesh  from  Babylonian  and  Roman 
bondage,  to  which  they  were  then  subject.  They  hoped  for 
pre-eminence  among  the  nations  of  the  earth  in  its  present  con- 
dition. Consequently  the  redemption  of  Israel  from  bondage 
to  the  Gentiles,  and  their  restoration  to  the  land  God  gave  to 
Abraham,  was  a  much  more  glorious  event,  according  to  the 
Divine  purpose,  than  they  conceived  it  to  be;  for  it  included 
the  deliverance,  not  only  of  their  own  land,  but  of  the  whole 
earth  from  the  bondage  of  the  curse  : — of  their  people  from  the 
bondage  of  sin,  John  viii.  36,  and  their  pre-eminence  in  dignity, 
glory,  and  power,  among  holy  and  redeemed  nations,  in  the 
world  restored  from  the  eff"ects  of  the  curse,  and  re-invested 
with  the  beauty  and  glory  of  Paradise.  But  the  crowning  glory 
of  all  these  blessings  is  yet  to  be  mentioned — we  mean  the  res- 
toration of  the  Theocracy — the  reign  of  Jehovah  Jesus  over 
Israel  restored  and  made  perfectly  holy,  and  over  the  whole 
earth,  in  peerless  majesty.  Cleopas  .and  his  companion  had  no 
such  thoughts  as  these.  They  had  fixed  their  hearts  upon  a 
national  deliverance  and  terrestrial  blessings,  such  as  the  world 
in  its   present   condition   may  aflbrd;    in   which   they  hoped 


494  ■  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE.    . 

to  share,  in  common  with  the  pious  and  the  good  of  their  own 
people.  They  thought  not  of  that  Divine  sonship  and  that 
better  inheritance  which  Christ  had  purchased  for  them  and  for 
all  his  elect,  John  i.  12,  comprising  within  itself  eternal  life  and 
glory,  enlargement  from  the  clogs  and  restraints  of  their  fleshly 
natures,  together  with  exaltation  far  above  all  other  creatures, 
in  virtue  of  their  union  with  him,  their  Redeemer.  John  xvii. 
To  enlarge  and  correct  their  views  on  these  and  kindred  topics, 
so  far  as'  they  were  capable  of  receiving  the  instruction,  we  may 
suppose  was  the  chief  object  of  our  Lord's  discourse  with  them, 
as  they  pursued  their  journey  to  Emmaus. 

Luke  xxiv.  27.  "And  beginning  at  Moses  and  all  the 
prophets,  he  expounded  unto  them,  in  all  the  Scriptures,  the 
things  concerning  himself." 

It  is  evident  from  this  verse,  that  there  are  prophecies  in  the 
books  of  Moses  concerning  Christ,  and  such  we  reckon  Gen. 
iii.  15;  xxii.  1 — 9  and  18;  xxvi.  4;  xlix.  10,  11;  Deut. 
xviii.  15;  Numb.  xxi.  9.  Yet  some  commentators  admit  only 
one.  Gen.  xxii.  18,  if  we  except  the  typical  representations  of 
the  Levitical  service.  This  opinion  is  quite  erroneous.  Heb. 
xi.  26;  xii.  26;  Acts.  xxvi.  22;  1  Cor.  x.  4.  Whether  these 
were  all  the  places  which  our  Lord  explained  we  can  only  con- 
jecture. Proceeding  to  the  prophets  we  may  imagine  he  cited 
and  explained  such  as  Ps.  xvi.  8 — 10 ;  xxii. ;  cxxxii.  11 ;  Isa. 
vii.  14;  Jer.  xxiii.  5;  Ezek.  xxxiv.  23;  Dan.  ix.  24 — 26; 
Micah  V.  2;  Zech.  vi.  12;  Micah  vii.  20. 

It  has  been  said,  also,  that  the  number  of  the  prophecies 
which  the  Lord  cited  and  explained  on  this  occasion  must  have 
been  small,  because  before  the  journey  to  Emmaus  was  ended 
he  had  very  exactly  gone  through  all  of  them.  But  we  must 
not  imagine  that  our  Lord's  method  of  unfolding  the  Scriptures 
was  in  any  respect  like  that  to  which  we  are  accustomed. 
Volumes,  no  doubt,  might  be  written  to  unfold  the  meaning  of 
the  few  we  have  cited,  without  perhaps  making  them  any  clearer 
either  to  the  unlearned  or  the  learned,  while  he  who  perfectly 
comprehended  the  whole  of  the  Scriptures,  and  who  spake  as 
never  man  spake,  could  comprise  the  whole  in  a  brief  discourse. 
The  voluminous  and  conflicting  commentaries  which  Ave  have 
upon  even  small  portions  of  the  Scriptures,  are  sad  evidence  of 
the  ignorance  of  the  learned.  Job  xxxviii.  2,  as  well  as  of  the 
unlearned,  for  whom  such  labours  are  especially  designed. 

Luke  xxiv.  28,  29.  "And  they  drew  nigh  unto  the  village 
whither  they  went,  and  he  made  as  though  he  would  have  gone 
further,  [that  is,  he  seemed  to  them  as  if  he  intended  or  inclined 
to  go  further,  as  he  would  have  done  if  they  had  not]  con- 
strained him,  saying :  Abide  with  us ;  for  it  is  towards  evening, 


EVENTS  OF  THE  DAY  OF  CHRIST'S  RESURRECTION.  495 

and  tlie  day' is  fiir  spent.     And  he  went  in  [as  if  he  intended] 
to  tarry  with  them." 

It  was  a  custom,  we  are  told,  among  the  Jews,  not  to  enter 
the  house  of  any  one  as  a  guest  without  being  invited,  and  the 
Lord  Jesus,  by  continuing  his  course  onward  as  they  were  part- 
ing from  him,  until  invited  to  stay  with  them,  merely  complied 
with  that  custom.  Undoubtedly  he  would  have  parted  from 
them  and  passed  onward,  had  they  not  earnestly  requested  him 
to  abide  with  them.  This  conduct  of  the  Saviour,  then,  affords 
no  colour  of  justification  to  falsehood,  or  dissimulation,  or 
insincerity,  though  it  does  justify  a  compliance  with  the  inno- 
cent usages  of  society. 

It  is  more  important  to  observe,  however,  how  fully  persuaded 
these  disciples  were,  that  he  was  simply  and  merely  a  man  like 
themselves. 

Their  hearts  were  deeply  affected  by  his  conversation;  they 
desired  to  enjoy  more  of  it,  and  that  was  the  motive  of  their 
urgency.  Had  they  supposed  him  to  be  an  angel  or  a  spirit, 
or  more  or  less  than  a  man  of  like  susceptibilities  with  them- 
selves, would  they  have  addressed  him  in  such  language  ? 

Luke  xxiv.  30.  "  And  it  came  to  pass  as  he  sat  at  meat 
with  them,  he  took  bread  and  blessed  it  [or  gave  thanks]  and 
brake  and  gave  to  them." 

We  are  not  informed  whether  this  action  was  performed  at 
the  beginning  or  at  the  end  of  the  meal.  But  as  it  was  one  of 
the  objects,  perhaps  the  chief  object  of  his  intercourse  at  this 
time  with  these  disciples,  to  give  them  convincing  and  indu- 
bitable evidence  of  his  resurrection,  it  is  probable  that  he  had 
already  partaken  of  food  with  them ;  for  this  was  one  of  the 
proofs  much  insisted  upon  by  the  apostles.  Acts  x.  41 ;  Luke 
xxiv.  4L* 

We  are  expressly  informed,  that  he  reclined  with  them  at 
the  table,  as  if  to  partake  of  food  (Iv  t<o  xaraxhQr^vai  ojjtov). 
But  before  he  took  the  bread  and  broke  it — an  action  proper 
to  be  performed  only  by  the  head  or  master  of  the  family,  or 
company,  at  the  table — he  must  have  risen,  or  at  least  changed 
his  posture.  We  may  imagine  that,  instantly  on  his  arising,  he 
assumed  the  tones  of  voice,  and  that  inimitable  manner  of  action 
in  addressing  the  Father,  with  which  they  were  familiar.     He 

*  Augustine  says  that  the  human  body,  in  its  resurrection  state,  would  be 
imperfect  if  it  could  not  partake  of  food;  and  that  it  would  be  imperfectly 
happy  if  it  had  need  of  food.  Epkt.  49,  Chnt.  Dei  xiii.  22.  But  the  par- 
taking of  food  is  deemed  conclusive  evidence  of  life  in  the  partaker,  and 
hence  our  Lord  ordered  the  parents  of  the  child  he  restored  to  life  to  give 
her  food. 


496  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE.  • 

puts  the  bread  in  their  hands  extended  unconsciously,  in  their 
amazement,  to  receive  it;  and  while  they  thus  held  it,  untasted 
perhaps,  he  disappears.  Most,  if  not  all,  of  the  ancient  com- 
mentators, regard  this  blessing,  or  giving  of  thanks  and  breaking 
of  bread,  as  the  sacrament  of  the  body  of  the  Lord.  We  do 
not  perceive  any  grounds  for  such  an  interpretation.  No  men- 
tion is  made  in  this  place  of  the  cup.  1  Cor.  xi.  25;  Luke  xxii. 
19,  20.  The  action  was  designed  rather  as  a  means  of  recogni- 
tion, and  as  a  proof  of  the  reality  of  his  bodily  presence,  and 
the  identity  of  his  person. 

Luke  xxiv.  31.  "  And  their  eyes  were  opened,  and  they 
knew  him,  and  he  vanished  out  of  their  sight." 

So  striking  and  peculiar  to  himself  was  his  attitude,  his  voice, 
and  expressions,  that  the  truth  flashed  upon  both  their  minds 
irresistibly,  at  the  same  instant,  although  they  had  thought  of 
him,  until  that  moment,  only  as  absent  and  dead.  They  knew 
him.  Their  eyes  were  no  longer  holden,  [ixpazow^ro,  verse  16,) 
but  opened  (da^i^or/dr^aav,  verse  31.)  At  the  same  instant,  he 
ceased  to  be  seen  of  them  {d<fai^TO(;  kyevero  olti  aunou.  See  mar- 
ginal translation.)  How  great  their  amazement !  How  unac- 
countable, that  they  did  not  know  him  before !  Their  hearts, 
however,  were  truer  to  his  words,  than  their  eyes  were  to  his 
person ! 

Luke  xxiv.  32.  "  And  they  said  one  to  the  other.  Did  not 
our  heart  burn  within  us  [was  not  our  heart  burning  within  us] 
while  he  talked  with  us  by  the  way,  and  while  he  opened  to  us 
the  Scriptures?"  [while  he  was  talking  with  us,  and  opening  to 
us  the  Scriptures.] 

The  power  and  Divine  unction  of  his  words  penetrated  their 
souls.  They  were  now  prepared  to  believe  the  report  of  the 
women,  which  they  had  heard  in  Jerusalem,  but  heeded  not. 
They  had  obtained  new,  though  perhaps  not  very  enlarged 
views  of  the  prophetic  Scriptures.  Some  things  which  before 
were  dark,  or  shut  up,  were  now  clear,  and  shed  a  joyous  light 
upon  the  occurrences  which,  just  before,  were  sorrowful  and 
perplexing.  Above  all,  they  had  found  him  whom  they  had 
mourned  as  dead  and  gone.  Their  hearts  turned  to  their  com- 
panions in  sorrow,  and  laying  aside  the  purpose  of  their  journey, 
whatever  it  may  have  been, 

Luke  xxiv.  33.  "They  rose  up  the  same  hour  and  returned 
to  Jerusalem,  and  found  the  eleven  gathered  together,  and  them 
that  were  with  them" — who,  though  they  had  not  seen  Jesus, 
had  heard  of  his  resurrection,  and'were  conversing  among  them- 
selves, as  Cleopas  and  his  companion  entered  the  room  where 
they  were  assembled. 


EVENTS  OF  THE  DAY  OF  CHRIST'S  RESURRECTION.  497 

Luke  xxiv.  34      "Saying,*  The  Lord  is  risen,  indeed,  and 
nath  appeared  to  Simon." 

We  infer  from  this  passage,  that  the  Lord  appeared  to  Peter 
when  he  was  alone,  before  he  appeared  to  any  other  of  his  male 
disciples,  but  when  or  where,  we  are  not  expressly  informed 
feee  notes  on  Luke  xxiv.  12.     Perhaps  it  was  with  a  view  to 
such  a  favour,  that  a  special  message  was  sent  to  Peter  by  the 
angel,  as  Mark  relates,  xvi.  7.     We  may  also  infer  from  this 
verse,  that  this  apostle  was  not  present  at  that  time,  although 
he  may  have  come  in  afterwards.    That  Thomas  was  not  present 
we  learn  from  John  xx.  24.     Hence,  we  take  the  expression,' 
the  eleven,     as  designed  to  designate  the  whole  body  of  the 
apostles,  as  it  was  at  that  time— eleven  being  the  number  after 
the   apostasy  of  Judas   Iscariot.    Acts  i.  26;    Mark  xvi   14- 
Matt,  xxviii.  16.     It  is  probable  that  nine,  only,  of  the  apos- 
tles were  actually  present  at  that  time,  though  there  were  others 
and  perhaps  some  of  the  female  disciples  with  tLem  ' 

We  observe  m  this  expression  (/}r£/>^;y  6  xop:o^  dvvco^)  an  em- 
phasis—an  air  of  earnestness,  which  seems  to  say,  that  now 
indeed,  they  were  really  convinced.  The  report  of  the  women 
they  disregarded,  verse  11,  but  Simon's  account  of  the  Lord's 
appearance  to  him  convinced  them.  "  Truly  Uvrco^:,  in  reality! 
the  Lord  is  risen,  and  hath  appeared,"  &c.  But  how  can  we 
reconcile  this  interpretation  with  Mark  xvi.  13^  We  have 
taken  It  for  granted,  that  the  two  disciples  referred  to  in  Mark 
XVI.  12,  were  Cleopas  and  his  companion;  and  Mark  says,  verse 
13,  that  when  they  went  and  told  what  they  had  seen  and  heard 
.  to  the  residue,  they  were  not  believed.  Yet,  according  to  what 
Luke  here  says,  the  eleven  had  already  been  convinced  by  the 
appearance  to  Simon.  *^ 

We  suppose  that  Mark,  in  the  18th  verse,  does  not  refer  to 
the  eleven,  but  to  others,  to  whom  these  disciples  related  the 
same  things.  Observe,  Mark  uses,  verse  13,  the  expression 
(mc  locTTocz)  the  residue,  to  denote  the  persons  who  did  not  be- 
lieve while  m  the  next  verse  he  denotes  the  apostles  by  the 
words  (ro.c  kvoexa)  "the  eleven,"  as  Luke  does.  Who  those 
others  were,  and  where  Cleopas  and  his  companion  found  them, 

and  no?  ^0^?'"^  ^''^l'^"'^'  '""'*  ^^  ^"^'''''"^  *°  ^"''^  '''^'^^'  &°-)  ^^^  eleven, 
and  not  to  Cleopas  and  liis  companion.     The  true  reading  is,  without  doubt 

Zl7i:f  r'  "^rr  .  '^'^  «°-ection  requires  it.  For^Siiion  iasn  t  on^ 
Whrsl ZJth/'f  t°  Emmaus,  and  if  he  were,  Cleopas  had  also  seen  Jesus. 
Z/.l  W^V^^  '^"';P'''  '''^'  '^  ^'"^"^  ^^«  ^"e  of  them,  that  the  Lord 
an?.TTh'  ^T^  '"''^'''^  ".^'^'"S  Cleopas,  if  they  referred  to  the  appear- 

ance to  them  on  their  way  to  Emmaus?     The  meaning  is,  that  during  the 

hJZZ        *!^r«'^''"P^''  '\  \^^  ^'''''^^  '^°°^'^  at  Jerusalem  that  the  Lord 
had  appeared  to  Simon;  and  this  they  were  conversing  abou.  when  Cleopas 
and  his  companion  entered  to  tell  them  of  yet  another  appearance. 
DO 


498  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

we  are  not  informed.  Did  they  meet  them  on  their  return  to 
the  city  from  Emmaus,  or  in  the  city  before  they  joined  the 
eleven?  Did  they  meet  them  on  the  same  or  on  the  succeeding 
day  ?  These  questions  we  cannot  answer.  Thus  much,  how- 
ever, is  evident :  the  13th  and  14th  verses  of  Mark  are  not  to 
be  understood  as  referring  to  the  same  time  or  persons,  and  this 
is  sufficient  to  remove  the  appearance  of  contradiction. 

Still  it  is  objected  that  Mark,  in  the  14th  verse,  represents 
the  eleven  as  incredulous,  notwithstanding  what  Luke  affirms, 
of  the  effect  of  the  testimony  of  Peter.  This  objection  we 
shall  notice  hereafter. 

Cleopas  and  his  companion,  finding  the  apostles  engaged  in 
animated  joyful  conversation  about  what  Simon  had  seen  and 
heard,  which,  probably,  Simon  himself  had  related  to  them,  or 
to  some  one  of  their  number,  they  interrupt  the  conversation, 
and  go  on  to  relate — 

Luke  xxiv.  35.  "What  things"  had  happened  to  them  while 
they  were  "in  the  way"  going  to  Emmaus,  "and  how  he  was 
known  of  them  in  breaking  of  bread;"  that  is,  during  the  meal 
or  repast  they  took  with  him  at  that  place. 

An  orderly  narrative,  as  the  original  word  k^r^youvro  implies, 
of  all  that  occurred  from  the  time  the  Lord  joined  them  on  the 
way,  until  he  disappeared,  would  probably  have  required  a  con- 
siderable time.  The  phraseology  allows  us  to  believe  that  their 
story  was  not  interrupted  till  the  substance  of  it  was  told.  And 
with  what  intense  interest  must  it  have  been  listened  to  by  the 
company !  We  can  only  judge  of  it  by  the  hold  which  we  know 
everything  that  concerned  Jesus  had  upon  their  minds.  The 
expression  "in  the  breaking  of  bread"  is  idiomatic,  and  signifies, 
as  before  intimated,  during  the  meal  or  repast.  We  do  not  un- 
derstand it  as  intended  to  denote  the  particular  act  mentioned 
in  verse  30,  but  in  the  general  sense  explained. 

Luke  xxiv.  36,  37.  "And  as  they  thus  spake,"  while  they 
were  yet  speaking,  "Jesus  himself  stood  in  the  midst  of  them, 
and  saith  unto  them,  Peace  be  unto  you.  But  they  were  terri- 
fied and  affi'ighted,  and  supposed  they  saw  a  spirit." 

This  eff"ect  of  the  sudden,  and  we  may  add,  miraculous  ap- 
pearance of  the  Lord,  is  just  that  which  might  have  been  antici- 
pated, notwithstanding  they  appear  to  have  been  convinced 
before  of  the  fact  of  his  resurrection.  It  furnishes  a  reason,  as 
we  suppose,  for  the  difi'erent  method  the  Lord  observed  in  his 
approach  to  Mary  Magdalen,  and  to  Cleopas  and  his  compa- 
nion. It  requires  but  little  ob'servation  of  human  nature  to 
know  the  extreme  dread  and  terror  all  men  instinctively  feel 
when  anything  supernatural  is  supposed  to  occur.  The  real  or 
supposed  appearance  of  a  departed  spirit  excites  such  a  sensa- 


EVENTS  OF  THE  DAY  OF  CHRIST'S  RESURRECTION.  499 

tion  of  nearness  to  the  unseen  world,  that  the  most  resolute  spirit 
quails  and  recoils  at  the  sight.  We  regard  such  an  event  as  a 
significant  intimation  of  what  exists  behind  the  veil — an  antici- 
pation, so  to  speak,  of  a  power  yet  to  be  universally  felt,  in  the 
full  development  of  good  or  evil. 

It  is  pertinent  to  remark,  also,  how  universally  this  belief  of 
the  spirit-world  is  spread  among  men.  It  is  not  peculiar  to  any 
nation,  or  age,  or  religion.  The  refined  Athenians  of  antiquity 
and  the  Romans  believed  in  a  world  of  spirits.  The  uncivilized 
Hottentot  and  the  savage  Caribbean,  of  more  modern  times, 
have  held  the  same  belief.  The  ancient  Jews,  perhaps  we 
should  except  the  Sadducees,  also  believed  in  the  reality  of 
spirits.  Philosophy  has  no  arguments  to  refute  the  dogma,  nor 
to  secure  mankind  against  fears  from  this  source.* 

Revelation  alone  can  furnish  us  with  any  solid  knowledge  on 
this  subject.  From  this  source  we  know  that  there  are  angels 
good  and  bad.  We  also  know  that  they  are  under  the  control 
of  a  higher  power,  and  can  no  more  transcend  the  laws 
appointed  to  them,  than  we  can  the  laws  appointed  to  us.  We 
knoAV,  also,  that  the  souls  of  men  exist  after  they  have  left 
their  bodies  in  the  places  appointed  to  them,  being  consaous  of 
their  condition  and  their  destiny,  but  without  the  Divine  per- 
mission they  have  no  more  power  to  appear  to,  or  hold  converse 
with  us,  during  their  disembodied  state,  than  we  have  to  appear 
among  them  in  our  fleshly  corporeal  forms.  But  to  return  to 
the  text. 

Luke  xxiv.  38,  39,  40.  "  And  he  said  unto  them,  why  are 
ye  troubled,  and  why  do  thoughts  [questionings,  doubts]  arise 
in  your  hearts  ?  Behold  my  hands  and  my  feet,  that  it  is  I 
myself.  Handle  me  and  see :  for  a  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and 
bones  as  ye  see  me  have;  and  having  said  this,  he  showed  them 
his  hands  and  his  feet." 

Our  Lord  seems  to  admit  that  spirits  may  appear  to  men, 
(when  permitted)  but  he  says  nothing  expressly  of  the  kind  of 
spirits — whether  human  or  angelic.  His  object  did  not  require 
him  to  do  so.  He  wished  to  remove  their  misapprehension  in 
relation  to  himself  and  their  fears,  which  he  did  by  giving 
them  a  test  by  which  they  could  surely  know  that  he  was  not  a 
disembodied  spirit.     He  does  not  assert  that  a  spirit  may  not 

*  Cfilmet  has  ■written  Dissertations  sur  les  Apparitions  des  Anges,  &c.,  which 
have  been  translated  into  English,  and  published  under  the  title  of  "The 
Phantom  World;  or,  The  History  and  Philosophy  of  Spirits,  Apparitions,"  kc. 
The  Rev.  Henry  Christmas  characterizes  it  as  "  a  vast  repertory  of  legends, 
more  or  less  probable,  some  of  which  have  very  little  foundation,  and  some 
which  Calmet  himself  would  have  done  well  to  omit,  though  now,  as  a  pic- 
ture of  the  belief  entertained  in  that  day,  tbey  greatly  add  to  the  value  of 
the  book," 


500  NOTES   ON  SCRIPTURE. 

have  a  material  body,  but  that  a  spirit  hath  not  a  body  of  flesh 
and  bones,  such  as  he  had.  1  Cor.  xv.  50,  44,  49 ;  Heb.  i.  14 ; 
ii.  14. 

Undoubtedly  our  Lord's  body,  at  that  time,  was  composed  of 
real  human  flesh  and  bones — the  identical  flesh  and  bones  com- 
posing the  body  which  sufi'ered.  To  the  eye  of  the  disciples 
he  appeared  to  be  the  same  person  as  ever  before.  We  infer 
this,  because  his  object  was  to  prove  his  corporeal  identity. 
His  body,  therefore,  must  have  been  preserved  in  its  natural 
state  of  flesh  and  bones,  although  in  other  respects  it  possessed 
properties  no  doubt  that  it  did  not  before.  For  example,  we 
may  believe  it  was  no  longer  passible,  or  capable  of  sufi"ering 
pain,  or  of  dying.  It  was  also  perfectly  subject  to  his  infinite 
spirit,  he  having  been  enlarged  from  the  restraints  to  which 
before  death  he  was  subject.  Luke  xii.  50.  It  was  capable  of 
being  transported  at  his  will,  without  violence  to  its  nature, 
from  earth  to  heaven  and  from  heaven  to  earth ;  although  it 
was  not  yet  glorified  or  transformed,  through  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  into  that  glorious  nature  in  which  he  after- 
wards appeared  to  John  and  to  Paul.  Rev.  i.  13 — 15 ;  Acts 
xxii.  6;  ix.  3,  4;  see  note  on  Matt,  xxviii.  9,  10.  Our  Lord 
exhibited  his  hands  and  his  feet  to  the  disciples  for  the  express 
purpose  of  proving,  by  the  highest  possible  evidence  the  disci- 
ples could  appreciate,  that  the  body  in  which  he  then  appeared 
before  them  was  no  phantom,  but  the  very  body  of  flesh  and 
bones  which  had  been  rudely  taken  from  them  in  the  garden, 
and  conducted  to  the  palace  of  the  high  priest,  and  from  thence 
to  the  hall  of  Pilate,  and  taken  by  the  soldiers  from  thence  to 
Calvary,  and  by  them  nailed  to  the  cross.  A  spirit  could  not 
be  felt  if  it  could  be  seen,  nor  could  it  be  seen  to  bear  such 
marks  as  those  he  exhibited.  Hence  these  proofs,  added  to  the 
appearance  of  his  whole  person,  his  demeanour,  his  voice,  his 
respiration,  were  full  and  perfect.  They  furnished  his  disci- 
ples with  as  convincing  evidence  of  his  corporeal  and  spiritual 
identity  as  they  possibly  could  have  of  the  presence  and  iden- 
tity of  each  other.* 

*  Do  we  inquire  whether  the  very  wounds  appeared  as  freshly  made,  or 
only  the  scars  of  them — the  wounds  themselves  having  been  closed  up  and 
healed  ?  The  Evangelists  do  not  explicitly  resolve  this  question.  We  know, 
however,  that  such  wounds  could  not  have  been  healed  in  so  short  an  inter- 
val— between  Friday  afternoon  and  Sunday  evening — by  a  process  of  nature 
in  any  other  person.  The  wound  in  his  side  was  made  after  he  had  expired ; 
and  while  the  body  remained  lifeless  in  the  sepulchre,  the  restorative  powers 
of  his  human  physical  nature  ceased.  -  At  his  resurrection  he  could  have 
restored  his  body  to  the  state  it  was  in  before  his  crucifixion  without  leaving 
even  a  mark  or  scar.  Yet  why  should  we  suppose  he  did  this  ?  The  miracle 
would  have  weakened  the  evidence  of  the  identity  of  his  person.  When 
they  last  saw  that  body,  (on  Friday  afternoon)  the   flesh  was  cruelly  lace- 


EVENTS  OP  THE  DAY  OF  CHRIST'S  RESURRECTION.  501 

Luke  xxiv.  41.  "And  while  they  yet  believed  not  for  joy 
and  wonder,  he  said  unto  them,  Have  ye  here  any  meat?" 

A  moment  before  they  were  affrighted,  but  the  brief  address 
of  the  Saviour  and  the  exhibition  he  made  of  his  hands  and  his 
feet  to  their  sight  and  touch  dispelled  their  fears,  and  filled 
them  with  unexpected  joy.  How  sudden  the  transition !  They 
knew  not  what  to  think.  They  knew  not  whether  they  should 
believe  or  not.  They  stood  between  fear  and  hope.  Their 
perplexity  had  passed  into  wonder.  Was  what  they  seemed  to 
see  and  hear  (for  we  do  not  read  that  any  of  them  had  ventured 
to  touch  his  person,  though  invited  to  do  so)  possible?  Could 
they  believe  their  senses?  Such  a  condition  of  the  mind  as 
we  have  described  is  neither  impossible  nor  unnatural.*  Ps. 
cxxvi.  1. 

To  remove  this  new  perplexity,  the  Saviour  resorts  to  another 
proof.  He  called  for  food,  that  he  might  partake  of  it  in  their 
presence:  "Have  ye  here  any  meat?"  We  may  read  these 
words,  perhaps,  without  the  question.  Ye  have  here  something 
to  eat.  It  is  supposed  he  found  them  reclining  at  the  table  at 
their  evening  meal,  with  their  food  before  them.. 

Luke  xxiv.  42,  43.  "And  they  gave  him  a  piece  of 
broiled  fish,  and  of  an  honeycomb,  and  he  took  and  did  eat 
before  them." 

It  is  not  necessary  to  add  to  the  observations  already  made 
on  verse  30.  It  is  sufiicient  to  say  that  this  proof  removed 
every  doubt,  and  their  minds  had  become  so  far  tranquillized, 
that  they  could  listen  with  composure  to  his  instructions.  Be- 
rated. How  could  such  wounds  be  healed  so  soon,  except  by  a  miracle,  and 
■what  proof  had  they  of  such  a  miracle  ?  And  why  should  we  suppose  he 
miraculously  healed  those  wounds  ?  It  was  not  necessary  to  the  restoration 
of  physical  life.  He,  (the  quickening  Spirit)  by  mere  occupation,  could  give 
and  maintain  its  life,  while  allowing  the  wounds  to  remain  just  as  they  were 
when  first  inflicted.  After  his  glorification  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose 
that  either  wounds  or  scars  appeared  upon  his  person.  If  we  'may  adopt 
this  suggestion,  may  we  not  suppose  that  the  vision  of  the  Lamb  slain.  Rev. 
V.  6,  has  respect  to  the  appearance  of  Jesus  in  heaven  before  his  glorifica- 
tion ?  See  notes  on  John  xx.  17.  We  add:  If  the  existence  of  such  wounds 
seemed  inconsistent  with  physical  life,  and  raised  a  doubt  in  the  minds  of 
the  eleven,  whether  after  all  he  was  not  a  spirit  or  phantom ;  the  calling 
for  food,  and  partaking  of  it  in  their  presence,  and  his  breathing  on  them, 
■were  well  calculated,  if  not  designed,  to  dispel  a  doubt  arising  from  such  a 
consideration. 

*  The  Roman  historian,  Livy,  in  book  39,  chap.  49,  informs  us  that  Philo- 
poemen,  the  Achean  general,  after  a  battle,  contrary  to  all  expectation,  re- 
mained alive.  The  enemy  found  him,  and  bore  him  oiF.  He  describes  their 
feelings  in  these  words,  which  are  very  apposite  to  our  subject:  "  Vix  sibi- 
met  ipsi  prce  nee  opinato  g audio  eredenies,"  "  scarcely  believing  themselves  on 
account  of  the  unexpected  joy." 


502  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE.  ■ 

fore  proceeding  further  with  this  Evangelist,  we  must  turn  to  the 
places  in  Mark  and  John  which  are  supposed  to  refer  to  the 
same  appearance  of  the  Saviour. 

Mark  xvi.  14.  "Afterwards  he  appeared  unto  the  eleven 
as  they  sat  at  meat,  and  upbraided  them  with  their  unbelief 
and  hardness  of  heart,  because  they  believed  not  them  which 
had  seen  him  after  he  was  risen." 

This  verse  is  commonly  regarded  as  parallel  with  the  passage 
in  Luke  which  we  have  just  considered,  and  so  we  have  arranged 
it  in  the  brief  harmony  prefixed  to  these  chapters.  Erasmus, 
hoAvever,  in  his  Paraphrases,  postpones  this  verse  till  near  the 
time  of  our  Lord's  final  visible  ascension.* 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  Mark  does  not  denote  the  time  with 
any  degree  of  definiteness.  "Afterward  [uarspov)  he  ap- 
peared;" that  is,  after  he  appeared  to  the  two  disciples  as  they 
were  going  into  the  country,  he  appeared  to  the  eleven  as  they 
sat  at  meat.  Townsend  supposes  it  was  eight  days  afterwards; 
that  is,  on  the  Sunday  following  the  Sunday  on  which  he  rose. 
The  objection  to  considering  it  as  referring  to  the  appearance 
Luke  speaks  of,  is  that  neither  Luke  nor  John  records  anything 
as  said  by  the  Saviour,  which  can  be  considered  an  uiJhraidiny 
of  them  for  their  unbelief  and  hardness  of  heart.  On  the  con- 
trary, his  words  were  full  of  tenderness.  His  behaviour  and 
discourse,  as  the  author  just  mentioned  remarks,  were  directed 
to  the  composing  of  their  troubles  and  the  satisfying  of  their 
doubts.  Accordingly,  he  assigns  the  passage  to  a  later  period, 
when  at  least  a  whole  week  had  been  allowed  the  disciples  to 
examine  and  compare  the  proofs  of  his  resurrection,  and  to  call 
to  mind  his  own  predictions  and  promises  concerning  it.  Then, 
if  no  more  was  said  by  way  of  reproof  than  what  he  said  to 
Thomas,  it  was  a  reprehension  of  the  others,  who  were  in  the 
same  state  of  mind,  and  sufficient  to  justify  Mark's  expression, 
"He  upbraided  them  with  their  unbelief  and  hardness  of 
heart,"  fheaning  to  include  therein  other  disciples  besides  the 
apostles.  Unless  we  adopt  this  view,  we  must  understand  the 
expression  of  Mark,  "upbraided  them,"  {covetocae)  as  signifying 
nothing  more  than  what  Luke  records  of  our  Lord's  language 
on  the  occasion  of  his  first  appearance  to  the  eleven,  or  we 
must  suppose  that  both  Luke  and  John  have  omitted  some 
expressions  which  would  justify  the  expression  of  Mark.  It  is 
a  question  which  cannot  be  determined  with  certainty,  and  it  is 

*  Postremo,  jam  abiturus  in  coelum,  .apparuit  undecim  apostolis  —  nam 
Judas  perierat — in  convivio  accumbentihus,  quibus  exprobravit  incredulitatem 
et  duritiem  cordis,  quod  his  qui  vidissent  ipsum,  resurrexisse  non  credidisseut. 
See  Erasmi  Paraphrases. 


EVENTS  OF  THE  DAY  OF  CHRIST'S  RESURRECTION.  503 

left  to  the  reader  to  adopt  such  view  as  may  seem  to  him  the 
most  reasonable.* 

We  turn  now  to  John  xx.  19.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
the  appearance  recorded  in  this  verse  is  the  same  as  that 
described  by  Luke,  though  more  briefly,  and  with  some  parti- 
culars which  Luke  omits. 

John  xx.  19.  "  The  same  day  at  evening,  being  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  when  the  doors  were  shut  where  the  disciples 
were  assembled,  for  fear  of  the  Jews,  came  Jesus,  and  stood  in 
the  midst  and  saith  unto  them.  Peace  be  unto  you." 

John  records  four  appearances  of  the  Lord,  after  his  resur- 
rection: The  first  was  in  the  morning  to  Mary  Magdalen,  when 
she  was  alone  at  the  sepulchre;  yet  in  the  next  chapter 
(verse  14)  he  speaks  of  the  fourth  appearance  as  the  third. 
His  appearance  to  Mary  was,  as  has  been  suggested,  for  a 
special  purpose.  See  notes  on  verse  17.  His  appearance  to  his 
male  disciples  was  to  qualify  them  to  be  witnesses  to  the  world 
of  his  resurrection.  Hence  it  was  that  while  he  allowed  the 
women,  at  his  second  appearance,  Matt,  xxviii.,  to  hold  him  by 
the  feet,  he  did  not  command  them  to  take  hold  of  his  person, 
nor  give  them  those  varied  evidences  of  his  corporeal  presence, 
he  gave  his  male  disciples.  Luke  xxiv.  39 ;  John  xx.  20,  27 ;  xxi. 
For  some  such  reason,  we  suppose,  John  took  no  notice  of  our 
Lord's  appearance  to  the  other  women,  and  omits  in  his  nume- 
rical series  the  first  appearance  to  Mary,  and  mentions  as  first 
in  order,  the  Lord's  appearance  to  his  male  disciples,  recorded 

*  We  have  seen  that  Erasmus  postpones  this  verse  till  near  the  time 
of  our  Lord's  visible  ascension.  Beza's  remarks  on  this  last  chapter  of  Mark 
seem  to  imply,  that  the  whole  of  it  may  be  understood  of  events  which  oc- 
curred on  the  day  of  our  Lord's  resurrection  without  any  violence  to  the  lan- 
guage, although  he  does  not  make  such  an  application  of  it.  His  words  are: 
"  Marcus  haec  omnia  in  unum  velut  corpus  conjungit.  Deinde  exponit  quo- 
modo  eodem  die  fuerat  duobus  illis  conspectus  qui  rus  ibant.  In  postrema, 
demum  parte  commemorat  quomodo  discipulis  apparuit,  incipiens  a,  pi'ima. 
ilia,  apparitione,  quae  facta  est  eo  ipso  die  quo  resurrexit,  quam  alite  postea 
multfR  consecutoB  sunt.  Sed  eas  omnes  rursus  in  unam  velut  historiam  con- 
trahit ;  ideoque,  postremam  hanc  apparitionem  vocat  qusp  ab  ipso  die  resur- 
rectionis  ad  ascensionem  porrigitur,  ut  liquet  ex  versiculo  19.  Eandem 
prorsus  rationem  sequitur  Lucas  postremo  capite  in  quo,  ita  connectit  primam 
illam  apparitionem  cum  postremi,  ut  nisi  quis  hoc  quod  dixi  consideret,  sit 
existimaturus,  Dominum  eo  ipse  die  quo  primum  apparuit  discipulis  (id  est 
quo  resurrexerat)  in  coelum  ascendisse,  cum  dies  quadraginta  intercesseriut  ut 
ipsemet  refert."  These  remarks  of  Beza  are  more  applicable  to  the  last 
chapter  of  Mark  than  to  the  last  chapter  of  Luke.  The  word  "afterward," 
iiTTijiov,  in  the  14th  verse  of  jMark,  makes  a  break  in  the  narrative.  We  are  not 
obliged  to  understand  the  appearance  spoken  of  by  Mark  as  having  been  made 
on  the  day  on  which  the  Lord  arose.  But  we  tiud  no  such  break  in  Luke's 
narrative.  The  series  of  the  occurrences  which  he  records,  down  to  the  51st 
verse  inclusively,  appear  to  be  immediately  consecutive,  and  compel  us  to 
believe  that  our  Lord  ascended  into  heaven  on  the  evening  of  the  day  of  his 
resurrection.     See  notes  on  John  xx.  17. 


504  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

in  tlie  verse  we  are  now  to  consider.  Comp.  verses  19,  24,  26, 
and  chap.  xxi.  2,  14.  It  took  place  on  the  evening  of  the 
same  day  he  appeared  to  Mary,  being  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
and  must  have  been  the  same  appearance  which  Luke  speaks 
of,  unless  we  suppose  he  appeared  twice  to  the  apostles  on  the 
same  evening,  which  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  relation  of 
Luke,  xxiv.  '66 — 49.  John's  account,  in  fact,  is  supplementary 
to  Luke's,  and  for  that  reason  is  more  brief.  If  we  compare 
the  two,  we  shall  be  prepared  properly  to  appreciate  the  diver- 
sities almost  everywhere  discernible  in  the  Gospels,  in  the  nar- 
rations of  the  same  events.  They  are  not  contradictions  nor 
discrepancies,  because  it  is  not  only  possible,  but  easy  to  weave 
all  the  incidents  into  one  consistent  narrative,  though  it  may 
not  be  possible  always  to  determine  with  certainty  the  times  or 
the  order  of  the  occurrences.  In  the  passage  under  considera- 
tion, John  informs  us,  that  the  disciples  were  assembled  with 
closed  doors,  through  fear  of  the  Jews.  The  motive  for  shutting 
the  doors  suggests  that  they  were  also  secured  by  bars,  or  bolts ; 
indeed  the  word  {xey.XztaiJ.evcov)  translated  shut,  implies  as  much. 
See  Matt.  xxv.  10,  11,  Gr.  Such  a  precaution,  if  it  did  not 
eflfectually  secure  them  from  their  enemies,  would  prevent  a 
sudden  intrusion  into  their  company  without  notice.  Hence  the 
sudden  appearance  of  the  Lord  Jesus  in  the  midst  of  them  would 
naturally  cause  the  fright  which  Luke  so  vividly  describes ;  and 
suggest  to  the  imagination  that  the  intruder  was  not  a  human 
being,  but  a  spirit:  for  how  could  he  enter,  the  doors  being 
shut,  if  he  were  a  corporeal  being?  Luke  xxiv.  37.  This  im- 
agination suggested,  perhaps,  the  mode  or  form  of  proof  which 
the  Lord  adopted — "See  my  hands,  my  feet;  handle  me,  and 
satisfy  yourselves  that  it  is  I  myself,  in  my  very  body  of  flesh 
and  bones."  But  Luke  had  not  mentioned  in  his  account  of 
the  crucifixion,  the  piercing  of  his  side,  and  he  says  nothing  of 
the  exhibition  of  it  on  this  occasion  to  the  disciples.  This 
omission  John  supplies,  and  from  his  account  we  infer  that 
Jesus  removed  his  dress  to  lay  this  wound  bare  to  their  view — 
an  action  which  of  itself  would  tend  to  dispel  their  unfounded 
apprehension.  Luke  records  the  words  with  which  the  Lord 
accompanied  these  various  actions,  and  the  mixed  emotions  of 
the  disciples,  fear,  joy,  wonder!  John  speaks  only  of  the  fact 
of  his  showing  them  his  hands  and  his  side,  and  of  the  joy  into 
which  the  other  emotions  subsided.  Luke  records  the  heads  of 
the  discourse  the  Saviour  held  with  his  disciples,  after  their 
fears  were  allayed  and  their  minds  composed,  verses  44 — 48, 
while  John  speaks  only  of  the  mission,  on  which  he  declared, 
at  the  conclusion  of  his  discourse,  he  would  send  them,  and  the 
powers  which  should  be  imparted  to  them  for  that  purpose,  by 


EVENTS  OF  THE  DAY  OF  CHRIST'S  RESURRECTION.  505 

the  Holy  Spirit,  verses  21 — 23.  Luke  also  records  the  promise 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  does  not  mention  the  symbolical  action 
of  breathing  on  the  apostles,  in  token  of  the  Spirit's  inspiration. 
John,  it  is  well  known,  wrote  last  of  the  Evangelists.  He  sup- 
plies many  important  and  interesting  incidents  which  the  other 
Evangelists  omitted.  We  may  regard  him  as  having  had  that 
purpose  especially  in  view,  or  we  may  regard  him  and  the  other 
Evangelists  as  intending  to  record  a  part  only,  John  xx.  30; 
xxi.  25,  of  the  memorable  sayings  and  doing  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
and  of  the  events  that  befell  him.* 

Luke  xxiv.  44.  "And  he  said  unto  them:  These  are  the 
words  that  I  spake  unto  you  while  I  was  yet  with  you,  that 
all  things  must  be  fulfilled  which  were  written  in  the  law  of 
Moses,  and  in  the  prophets,  aud  in  the  Psalms  concerning  me." 

Observe  the  style  of  this  address :  The  Lord  speaks  of  him- 
self as  of  one  ivho  urns  no  longer  with  them  as  he  had  been 
before.  Comp.  Acts  ix.  39.  He  was  actually  present  with  them 
in  his  body  at  that  very  time,  or  the  exhibition  of  his  hands  and 
feet  and  side,  and  his  breathing  upon  them  and  talking  with 
them,  was  all  an  illusion.  On  no  other  condition  could  they 
handle  him  and  feel  his  flesh  and  bones.  Certainly  he  was 
locally,  personally  present  with  them  in  the  very  body  which 
hung  on  the  cross.  In  what  sense,  then,  was  he  no  longer  with 
them?  He  had  ascended  to  the  Father.  The  earth  was  no 
longer  the  place  of  his  domicile.  His  sacrificial  work  was  done ; 
his  earthly  ministry,  as  a  man,  was  ended;  and  although  incar- 
nate and  not  yet  glorified,  he  was  with  them,  as  he  was  Avith 
Abraham  in  the  plain  of  Mamre,  Gen.  xviii.  1,  or  with  Manoah. 
Judges  xiii.  He  was  come  to  them  again  from  the  Father,  not 
to  abide  with  them ;  not  to  continue  with  them  in  social  inter- 
course in  the  flesh,  but  simply  to  qualify  them  to  be  eye-wit- 
nesses of  his  resurrection, f 

*  Like  Xenophon  in  his  work  upon  Socrates,  they  record,  says  a  learned 
writer,  (u5rcjMV«^cva/uaT*)  3Iemurabilia,  without  pretending  to  furnish  their 
readers  witii  an  extended  connected  record  of  the  whole  of  his  life,  or  even  of 
his  public  life.  Hence  Matthew  and  Mark  confine  themselves  chiefly  to  what 
he  did  in  Galilee.  Of  the  rest  they  speak  only  summarily.  Luke  dwells 
chiefly  upon  the  Lord's  last  journey  to  Jerusalem.  See  from  the  ninth  chapter 
to  the  end  of  his  Gospel.  John  gives  more  of  his  history  in  Judea  than  the 
other  Evangelists.  His  Gospel  is  peculiarly  rich  in  the  private  instructions 
which  the  Lord  gave  to  his  disciples  and  others  who  sought  him  with  a  friendly 
and  teachable  spirit.  See  chaps,  iii.,  iv.,  xiii.  to  xvii.  Neither  of  the  Gospels, 
therefore,  was  intended  as  a  biography  or  as  a  journal  of  his  private  and  public 
life,  but  rather  as  excerpts  or  mi.icellnnies  selected  from  his  life  by  each  Evan- 
gelist independently  of  the  others:  the  common  design  of  all  being  to  prove 
the  Divine  nature  and  mission  of  our  blessed  Lord,  and  the  object  of  his  incar- 
nation and  death,  so  that  believing  in  him  we  may  have  life  through  his  name. 
John  XX   31  ;   Acts  xiii.  38—41. 

f  According  to  Mill,  some  MSS.  add  to  Acts  x.  41,  after  the  word  o-uvtricuiv 

64 


506  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

Observe  also  the  matter  of  the  address:  "These  are  the 
words  which  I  spake  unto  you."  What  words?  Are  they  the 
words  which  follow  to  the  end  of  the  verse?  viz.  "that  all 
things  must  be  fulfilled,"  &c.  This  may  be  the  sense.  See 
Luke  xviii.  31;  Ps.  xxii.  16.  But  the  expression  admits  of 
another  sense.  "  These  are  the  things  which  I  spoke  of  " — mean- 
ing the  wounds  in  his  hands  and  his  feet,  which  perhaps  he  ex- 
hibited to  them  while  pronouncing  these  words.* 

If  we  may  understand  the  words  in  this  sense,  the  Lord 
referred  to  his  repeated  predictions  of  his  sufferings,  which  per- 
plexed them  so  much,  which  they  could  not  believe  were  even 
possible.  These  predictions  he  began  to  utter  when  Peter  first 
declared,  by  Divine  inspiration,  the  mystery  of  his  person,  which 
he  repeated  to  them  afterwards  frequently  in  private. f 

And  now,  when  they  saw  them  fulfilled,  he  says,  "These  are 
the  things  of  which  I  spake,"  &c.,  when  I  said,  "that  all  things 
written  in  the  law,"  &c.,  concerning  me  must  be  fulfilled. 

We  observe  again,  that  our  Lord  here  recognizes  and  sanc- 
tions the  three  great  divisions  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  the 
Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms ;  and  expressly  asserts  that 
he  is  the  great  subject  of  each  of  them.  Indeed,  if  they  relate 
to  him  at  all,  the  other  matters  they  contain  must  be  of  subor- 
dinate moment.  It  seems  to  us  strange  that  this  sense  of  the 
Scriptures,  thus  exhibited  to  them,  should  have  escaped  the  ob- 
servation of  the  whole  nation,  even  of  the  devout.  But  it  was 
not  consistent  with  the  Divine  plan,  that  the-  nation  should  un- 
derstand clearly  before  the  event,  the  revelation  of  a  rejected 
and  suffering  Messiah ;  for  a  clear  disclosure  of  the  event  would 
have  seemed  inconsistent  with  the  proclamation  of  the  kingdom, 
and  the  freeness  of  the  offer  of  its  blessings.  Luke  xiii.  34; 
xix.  41,  42;  Matt,  xxiii.  37;  xxi.  42,  43;  iv.  17.  Although 
these  things  were  revealed,  yet  to  the  nation  they  were  a  pro- 
found mystery ;  and  hence  our  Lord,  in  private,  told  his  disci- 
ples of  them  beforehand,  that  when  they  should  come  to  pass 

the  words  ita/  auvia-'rfaL<pK/j.i]i.  Hence,  it  has  been  inferred,  by  some  commenta- 
tors, that  our  Lord,  during  the  forty  days  following  his  resurrection,  went  about 
with  his  disciples  in  social  daily  intercourse,  as  he  did  during  his  public 
ministry.  The  expression  in  Luke  xxiv.  44,  et'  iv  <ruv  v/uiv,  is  quite  sufficient  to 
confute  this  idea,  and  justify  the  common  reading. 

*  The  word  Koyct  is  often  used  in  the  New  Testament  in  the  sense  of  the  He- 
brew "^^-j  dabar,  which  signifies  casus,  factum,  or  negotium,  as  well  as  sermo  or 
verbum,  or  in  the  sense  of  Trf^yfjLo.,  ^n/jLO..  See  1  Kings  xv.  5,  in  Hebrew  and 
Greek;   Matt.  v.  32.     See  Vorsdus  de  Hebraismis  N.  T.,  cap.  xiv. 

t  See  Matt.  xvi.  21;  xvii.  22;  xx.  18;  Mark  viii.  31;  ix.  31;  x.  33;  Luke 
ix.  22;  xviii.  31.  Hardy's  annotation  is — "  Hbbc  sunt  verba,  vel  res  quas  nunc 
videtis  impletas,  nimirum  passionem  et  resurrectionem;  quod  mihi  pisedicenti 
ssepe  non  credidistis  aut  quod  prcedictum  non  intellexistis,  nunc  reipsa  experi- 
miui,  et  oculis  vestris  cernitis." 


EVENTS  OF  THE  DAY  OF  CHRIST'S  RESURRECTION.  507 

they  might  bielieve.  John  xiii.  10;  xiv.  29;  xvi.  4.  Now  they 
could  no  longer  doubt.  His  pierced  hands  and  feet  and  side 
thus  exhibited  to  them,  proved  beyond  cavil  or  doubt,  the  sense 
in  which  he  had  explained  to  them  the  Scriptures. 

Luke  xxiv.  45.  "Then  opened  he  their  understanding,  that 
they  might  understand  the  Scriptures." 

That  is  to  say,  He  opened  their  minds  by  this  exhibition  of 
his  living  person  to  them,  with  the  wounds  which  had  been  in- 
flicted upon  it,  for  that  was  a  practical  or  providential  commen- 
tary on  his  previous  declarations,  which  enabled  them  to  com- 
prehend his  meaning,  and  the  true  meaning  of  the  Scriptures 
he  had  so  often  cited  to  them,  and  applied  to  himself.  This 
was  an  advance  in  knowledge;  for  when  he  last  spoke  to  them 
of  his  approaching  sufferings  and  death,  which  was  only  a  few 
days  before,  Luke  xviii.  31 — 34,  "  They  understood  none  of  the 
things  that  he  said ;  his  meaning  was  hidden  from  them,  neither 
understood  they  the  things  that  were  spoken  of."*  We  are  not 
to  understand  by  this  verse,  that  our  Lord,  at  that  time,  im- 
parted to  them  spiritual  illumination.  That  was  the  appointed 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  John  xvi.  13 — 15,  and  was  reserved 
till  the  day  of  Pentecost.     Acts  iii. 

Luke  xxiv.  46.  "And  he  said  unto  them:  Thus  it  is 
written,  and  thus  it  behoved  Christ  to  suffer,  and  to  rise  from 
the  dead  on  the  third  day." 

We  may  regard  this  verse  as  exegetical  or  explanatory  of 
what  he  had  already  said.  "  Thus  as  I  have  told  you,  it  is 
written"  in  the  Law,  and  the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms,  con- 
cerning the  Christ,  "and  thus,"  as  you  see  in  these  (my)  hands 
and  in  these  (my)  feet,  Ps.  xxii.  16,  and  in  this  (my)  side, 
Zech.  xii. ;  Rev.  i.  7,  "  it  was  necessary  that  the  Christ  should 
suffer"  death  by  crucifixion,  as  ye  saw  me  crucified,  "and  rise 
from  the  dead,"  as  ye  see  me  now  risen  "on  the  third  day," 
Jonah  i.  17 ;  Matt.  xvi.  4 ;  xii.  40,  afterwards,  as  ye  now  see 
me  stand  before  you.  We  do  not  suppose  that  the  Lord 
entered  into  a  formal  orderly  exposition  of  Moses  and  the 
prophets  at  this  interview,  as  he  had  done  shortly  before  with 
Cleopas  and  his  companion  while  walking  with  them  to  Em- 
maus.     Rather,  as  we  infer  from  verse  35,  these  disciples  had 

*  John  the  Baptist  appears  to  have  understood  the  mystery  of  a  suffering 
Messiah,  John  i.  29,  and  in  this  respect  he  was  far  in  advance  of  the  apostles, 
until  they  were  inspired  by  the  Holy  S[)irit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  Yet, 
even  John  did  not  discern  this  mystery,  we  have  reason  to  believe,  before  Jesus 
came  to  him  for  baptism.  See  a  note  on  Matt.  iii.  1.5.  This  was  evidently  the 
opinion  of  Clarius,  who  remarks  on  Matt.  iii.  1.5:  "Sunt  qui  credant  eh  ipsd. 
hora,  fuisse  ei  revelatum,  etiam  antequam  signum  sibi  a  Spiritu  prfcdictum  vi- 
disset."  In  no  other  way  can  we  explain  Matt.  iii.  14,  consistently  with  John 
i.  31—33. 


508  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 

already  {i^rjoouro)  rehearsed  fully  to  the  eleven  the  discourse 
the  Lord  had  held  with  them  before  he  entered  the  apartment. 
In  this  way  he  made  them  his  spokesmen  on  these  topics,  and 
with  this  design,  perhaps,  delayed  his  appearance  until  they 
had  finished  the  rehearsal.  That  done,  he  stood  visibly  before 
them,  to  verify  the  words  they  had  heard  from  Cleopas,  by  the 
exhibition  of  his  person — thus  opening  their  minds,  not  only  to 
perceive,  but  to  receive  the  literal  and  true  sense  of  the  pro- 
phetical Scriptures  which  Cleopas  and  his  companion  had 
explained.  What  an  impressive  commentary  !  and  how  diflBcult 
it  was  to  overcome  the  force  of  their  preconceived  opinions  ! 
Yet,  the  literal  sense  which  lay  on  the  surface,  was  hid  from 
them,  neither  did  they  understand  it  or  receive  it,  until  they 
saw  it  fulfilled  in  his  flesh.  We  add :  there  is  nothing;  in  the 
narrative  of  Luke  inconsistent  with  the  supposition  that  Jesus 
was  invisibly  present  with  them  in  his  body  Avhile  these  disci- 
ples were  relating  their  story.  Is  it  not  possible,  that  sincere 
and  faithful  men,  now-a-days,  like  these  disciples,  are  blinded 
to  some  of  the  plainest  truths  of  the  Scriptures,  by  traditional 
theology? 

Luke  xxrv.  47.  "And  that  repentance  and  remission  of 
sins  should  be  preached  in  his  name  among  all  nations,  begin- 
ning at  Jerusalem." 

This  was  a  new  topic,  and  the  Divine  purpose  announced  by 
these  words,  implied  much  more  than  the  apostles  were  able,  at 
that  time,  to  comprehend.  The  sin  of  their  nation,  and  their 
consequent  fall,  were  about  to  introduce  a  new  order  of  things. 
Rom.  xi.  11,  12.  The  nation  had  lost  its  pre-eminence,  and  to 
a  great  extent  its  priority.  Repentance  and  remission  of  sins 
were  no  longer  to  be  preached  to  them  exclusively,  Acts  xix.  4, 
as  hitherto.  Matt.  x.  5,  6.  Had  the  nation  received  their 
Messiah  with  the  obedience  of  faith,  he  would  have  been  emi- 
nently their  Saviour.  Ps.  Ixxxi.  13 — 16 ;  Matt,  xxiii.  37 ; 
Luke  xiii.  34;  xix.  41,  42;  Exod.  xix.  5,  6.  But  that  was 
impossible,  considering  the  depravity  of  their  nature,  and  they 
could  not  reject  him  and  put  him  to  death,  and  yet  enjoy 
exclusively  or  pre  eminently  the  blessings  of  his  kingdom. 
Hence  all  other  nations  were  to  be  included  in  the  new  com- 
mission. 

Yet  the  Jews  are  an  example  of  what  any  other  nation  or 
race  of  men  would  have  done  in  the  same  circumstances.  Rom. 
iii.  9.  Their  fall  proved — and  it  was  designed  to  prove — the 
necessity  of,  a  dispensation  of  grace,  and  of  a  new  agency,  to 
prepare  the  world  effectually  for  the  coming  of  the  kingdom  of 
God,  and  its  establishment  in  outward  glory  on  the  earth,  for 
which  we  are  taught  to  pray.   Matt.  vi.  10.     Yet,  for  their  sin, 


EVENTS  OF  THE  DAY  OF  CIIRIST'S  RESURRECTION.  509 

the  Divine  -judgments  were  to  be  sent  upon  them,  their  land 
•was  to  be  given  up  for  a  time  to  the  Gentiles,  their  temple  to 
be  destroyed,  their  people  to  be  dispersed,  and  all  these  things 
were  to  continue  until  the  times  before  appointed  for  the 
continuance  of  Gentile  power  should  elapse.  Luke  xxi.  2^ ; 
Matt.  xxi.  43. 

These  results  were  due  to  the  folly  and  sin  of  the  nation  as 
such.  Yet  Avithin  the  nation  there  was  an  election  of  grace, 
Rom.  xi.  5;  John  i.  12,  on  whose  account  its  times  were  to  be 
prolonged  for  a  little  season.  These  things,  however,  the  Lord 
did  not  attempt  to  explain,  and  we  know  from  the  inquiry  they 
made  of  him,  forty  days  afterwards.  Acts  i.  6,  they  did  not 
understand  him  as  alluding  even  remotely  to  the  impending 
calamities,  although  to  some  of  their  number  he  had  within  a 
week  foretold  them  in  the  plainest  language.  Mark  xiv.  8; 
Luke  xxi.  20 — 24;  Matt.  xxiv.  21.  Nor  did  they  seem  to 
comprehend  what  he  intended  by  the  words  we  are  noAV  consid- 
ering; because,  a  few  years  afterwards,  a  supernatural  vision 
was  necessary  to  make  Peter  comprehend  God's  purposes  of 
mercy  to  the  Gentiles.  Acts  x. 

Luke  xxiv.  48.  "And  ye  are  witnesses  of  these  things;" 
that  is,  of  the  Lord's  sufferings,  death,  burial,  and  resurrection. 
Pie  had  given  them  every  proof  which  it  was  possible  for  them 
to  appreciate  by  their  understanding  or  senses,  in  order  that 
he  might  make  them  credible  witnesses  of  the  facts  they  were 
to  attest  in  the  fullest  sense.  And  the  great  difficulty  the 
apostles  and  most  attached  disciples  of  our  Lord  had  in  believ- 
ing his  resurrection  from  the  dead,  became,  in  the  order  of 
Divine  Providence,  the  means  of  establishing  more  firmly  the 
truth  of  this  doctrine,  the  hearty  belief  of  which,  as  the  apostle 
Paul  teaches,  is  indispensable  to  salvation.  Rom.  x.  9. 

The  resurrection  of  Christ  was  foretold,  John  xx.  9 ;  ii.  19 ; 
1  Cor.  XV.  4;  Matt.  xvi.  4;  Acts  ii.  31;  xiii.  33;  yet  not  so 
clearly  that  the  Divine  wisdom  saw  proper  to  dispense  with 
human  testimony  to  the  fact.  Indeed,  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  is  the  great  miracle  of  this  dispensation,  and  consider- 
ing the  length  of  time  the  dispensation  was  to  run,  and  the 
wide  extent  through  which  the  fact  was  to  be  proclaimed,  it  is 
obvious  it  could  not  be  established  in  any  other  way  for  all 
ages.  Hence  the  apostles  insist  largely  upon  the  testimony 
they  allege  in  proof  of  the  fact,  1  Cor.  xv.  3 — 8,  15;  Acts  ii. 
32;  iv.  33,  21;  x.  39,  41,  42,  confirmed  as  it  was  by  the 
miraculous  gifts  and  powers  conferred  upon  them.  Acts  ii.  3,  4, 
33,  and  the  miracles  which  they  wrought,  Acts  iii.  1^;  iv.  10. 
It  is  to  be  observed  also,  that  this  office  of  bearing  testimony 
to  his  resurrection  is  here  conferred  upon  (the  eleven)  his  male 


510  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 

disciples,  as  it  was  afterwards  confined  to  them  on  the  day  of 
his  final  visible  ascension  into  heaven,  Acts  i.  8,  22,  to  which 
official  designation  or  appointment  Peter  refers  in  Acts  x.  39. 
See  John  xv.  27,  also.  Hence,  we  learn  that  the  ministry  of 
the  gospel  of  this  dispensation  of  the  Spirit  is  chiejiy  a  ivitness- 
ing  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  without  which  all  preaching  is 
vain  and  our  faith  is  vain.  1  Cor.  xv.  15,  17;  Acts  iv.  33; 
Rom.  x.  9;  Acts  v.  32;  x.  39—42. 

John  xx.  21.  "Then  said  Jesus  unto  them  again:  Peace  be 
unto  you;  as  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you."* 

We  observe  the  same  words  nearly  in  our  Lord's  interces- 
sion, John  xvii.  18,  and  as  the  eleven  then  present  heard  that 
intercession,  only  three  days  before,  they  would  naturally 
notice  the  similarity.  By  comparing  the  mission  he  gave  thern, 
to  the  mission  he  had  received  and  executed,  he  declared  it  to 
be  heavenly  and  divine.  As  he  was  not  of  the  world,  so  they 
were  not  of  the  world,  John  Xvii.  16 ;  and  as  he  was  sent  into 
the  world,  so  he  sent  them  into  the  world,  to  preach  repent- 
ance and  the  remission  of  sins  in  his  name.  They  were  quali- 
fied to  do  so  as  they  had  witnessed  his  sufferings  and  his  death, 
and  now  had  ocular  proof  of  his  resurrection. 

John  xx.  22.  "And  when  he  had  said  this  he  breathed  on 
them,  and  saith  unto  them,  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost." 

His  breathing  on  them  was  another  proof  of  his  corporeal 
presence,  and  of  the  restoration  of  the  vital  powers  to  his  body. 
If  the  spear  of  the  soldier  had  pierced  the  lung,  its  functions 
were  restored,  even  if  we  suppose  the  external  wound  re- 
mained visible,  and  as  freshly  made.  Some  of  the  ancient 
commentators  find  in  this  action  of  breathing  on  them  an  allu- 
sion to  Gen.  ii.  7,  where  we  are  taught  that  in  the  creation  of 
Adam  God  breathed  into  his  face  the  breath  of  life,  and  he 
became  a  living  soul: — so  now  the  Lord  Jesus,  by  breathing 
upon  his  apostles,  gave  them  a  divine  and  supernatural  life. 
See  Augustine  Tract  on  John  xxxii.f 

Without  dwelling  on  this  conjecture,  we  may  safely  regard 
the  action  as  symbolical,  not  as  operative  or  efficacious.     It  sig- 

«■  In  harmonizing  and  blending  the  record  of  John  with  that  of  Luke,  it  is 
impossible  to  decide  with  certainty  the  order  in  which  the  different  matters 
recorded  took  place.  Nor  do  we  suppose  the  Evangelists  themselves  observed 
exactly  the  order  of  utterance  or  occurrence  throughout.  It  seems  to  us  that 
as  soon  as  the  Lord  had  recognized  them  as  the  witnesses  of  his  resurrection, 
it  was  natural  to  advert  to  the  mission  in  which  they  were  to  bear  this  testi- 
mony.    Hence  we  have  introduced  this  ve.rse  in  this  place. 

f  Augustine  supposed  also  that  the  Saviour  intended  to  signify  by  breathing 
on  the  disciples,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  would  proceed  from  him  as  the  breath 
emitted  proceeded  from  his  body,  so  that  the  Holy  Spirit  which  he  gave  pro- 
ceeded from  his  Divine  nature. 


EVENTS  OF  THE  DAY  OF  CHRIST'S  RESURRECTION.  511 

nified  that  they  should  as  certainly  receive  the  Holy  Ghost  as 
they  received  his  breath — that  He  (the  Spirit)  would  as  cer- 
tainly breathe  into  or  inspire  their  souls  with  knowledge,  power, 
and  every  needful  gift,  as  he  (the  Saviour)  then  breathed  upon 
their  countenances  or  persons.  This  method  of  instruction,  by 
actions  addressing  the  eyes,  as  well  as  by  words  addressing  the 
ears,  was  not  unusual  with  our  Lord,  John  xiii.  4,  5,  12,  15 ; 
ix.  6,  7 ;  viii.  6,  and  was  quite  agreeable  to  the  manners  of 
the  Jews,  Jer.  xxvii.  2 ;  Isa.  xx.  3 ;  Matt,  xxvii.  24,  and  of 
other  ancient  nations. 

Bj  the  Holy  Ghost  we  understand  the  third  person  of  the 
Trinity,  the  Comforter  promised  by  the  Saviour  to  his  disciples, 
John  XV.  26 ;  xvi.  7,  who  was  given  on  the  day  of  Pentecost 
next  following.  Acts  ii.  2,  4,  when  Jesus  was  glorified.  John 
vii.  39. 

Luke  xxiv.  49.  "And  behold  I  send  the  promise  of  my 
Father  upon  you ;  but  tarry  ye  {xadcoaze)  in  the  city  of  Jerusa- 
lem, until  ye  be  endued  with  power  from  on  high." 

This  passage  confirms  the  interpretation  before  given  of  John 
XX.  22,  Evidently  Luke  refers  to  the  same  promise  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  whom  the  Lord  assured  them  he  would  send  upon 
them,  but  not  then.  We  know  that  the  Spirit  was  given  fifty 
days  afterwards — at  the  Pentecost — though  it  is  not  probable 
the  apostles  knew  beforehand  what  was  the  appointed  time  of 
this  gift.  They  were  kept  in  the  posture  of  waiting,  and  not 
knowing,  nor  being  capable  of  imagining  how  the  fulfilment  of 
this  promise  would  affect  them.  Under  their  former  mission, 
they  exercised  powers  of  the  most  extraordinary  kind.  Matt. 
X.  8.  It  is  not  probable  that  they  were  conscious  of  the 
manner  in  which  they  received  those  powers,  and  it  is  probable 
that  after  the  trial  of  the  nation  was  over,  and  at  least  as  soon 
as  our  Lord's  public  ministry  was  closed,  those  miraculous 
powers  were  withdrawn.  But  now  they  were  taught  to  expect 
a  renewal  of  them  in  order  to  fit  them  for  their  new  duties  and 
the  new  field  into  which  they  were  to  be  sent. 

It  was  Avith  reference  to  the  bestowment  of  this  new  power 
from  on  high  they  were  commanded  to  remain  together  at 
Jerusalem,  in  order  that  its  effect  might  be  witnessed  by  those 
who  the  Lord  designed  should  be  first  influenced  thereby. 
Jerusalem  was  the  point  of  confluence  of  devout  Jews  of  every 
nation,  many  of  whom  would  be  brought  together  by  the 
approaching  festival,  and  thus  in  the  providence  of  God 
become  witnesses  of  the  first  signal  display  of  the  Divine 
presence  and  power  at  the  inauguration  of  the  new  dispensa- 
tion. The  command  to  tarry  in  the  city  until  they  should  be 
endued  with  the  promised  power,  required  indeed  that  they 


512  NOTES   ON    SCRIPTURE. 

should  not  return  to  their  homes  in  Galilee  during  this  interval 
to  abide  there,  but  it  did  not  prohibit  their  temporary  absence;* 
for  we  know  that  several  did  leave  that  city  afterwards  for  a 
time.  John  xxi.  1.  As  the  time,  however,  drew  near.  Acts 
i.  5,  the  command  was  renewed.  Acts  i.  4,  p:q  y^copc^toOac,  in  a 
form  to  induce  greater  strictness  in  observing  it.  They  had 
this  motive  for  strict  obedience,  that  the  promised  power  would 
be  conferred  at  Jerusalem,  and  of  course  upon  those  only  who 
should  be  there  waiting  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise,  in 
obedience  to  the  Saviour's  command. 

But  this  injunction,  however  understood,  must  have  struck 
the  minds  of  the  apostles  with  great  force.  Jerusalem  was  to 
them  a  place  of  danger.  At  that  very  moment  it  was  given, 
they  were  secretly  gathered  together  with  closed  doors  for  fear 
of  the  Jews.  Yet  the  appearance  of  their  Divine  Master  in 
the  midst  of  them,  and  the  demonstrations  he  gave  them  of  his 
power  and  of  his  Divine  nature,  by  his  resurrection  from  the 
dead,  would  naturally  dispel  their  fear  of  man,  and  incline 
them  to  rely  confidently  upon  him  for  protection.  At  least, 
we  may  suppose  that  with  the  command  which  he  now  gave 
them,  he  imparted  the  grace  and  strength  requisite  to  fulfil  it. 

John  xx.  23.  "Whose  soever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are 
remitted  unto  them ;  and  whose  soever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are 
retained." 

This  declaration  followed  immediately  our  Lord's  act  of 
breathing  on  the  apostles,  which  he  explained  as  symbolical 
of  the  descent  upon  them  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  connection 
betAveen  the  two  gifts  indicates  that  the  extraordinary  power 
conferred  by  these  words  could  be  exercised  only  by  the 
immediate  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  There  are  many, 
however,  who  maintain  that  by  these  words  the  power  of 
pardoning  sin  was  imparted  to  the  church  and  its  ministers  in 
all  ages.  But  this  is  a  great  error.  The  Jews  judged  rightly 
that  the  power  of  pardoning  sin  belongs  to  God  alone,  Mark 
li.  7 ;  Matt.  ix.  2,  3 ;  and  therefore  the  fact  that  Jesus  exer- 
cised that  power,  attesting  it  by  miracles,  proved  his  Divine 
mission.  The  Divine  power  to  heal  incurable  diseases  attested 
his  Divine  authority  to  pardon  sins,  the  cause  "  of  death  and 
all  our  woes."  And  now  having  just  given  the  apostles  a 
commission  like  his  own,  and  having  symbolically  imparted  to 

*  Luke  uses  the  word  'ma^iTi  to  denote  Paul's  residence  at  Corinth,  Acts 
xviii.  11,  -which  certainly  does  not  imply -that  he  confined  himself  continually 
within  the  very  walls  of  the  city.  See  Rom.  xv.  19  ;  xvi.  1;  2  Cor.  i.  1  ;  xi. 
9.  10.  which  seem  to  prove  that  Paul  visited  the  neighbourhood  of  Corinth. 
Xaif(^6!7-6 /(,  on  the  otlier  hand,  does  not  denote  a  continued  action;  but  simply 
the  act  of  separating,  departing,  going  away.  Acts  xviii.  1. 


EVENTS  OF  THE  DAY  OF  CHRIST's  RESURRECTION.         513 

them  the  Holy  Ghost  as  their  infallible  guide  in  the  execution 
of  that  commission,  he  gives  them  also  the  power  of  pardoninw 
sins,  which  he,  as  the  Son  of  Man,  had  exercised  on  several 
occasions,  and  had  power  to  exercise  at  all  times  in  accordance 
with  the  Divine  will. 

Accordingly  they  exercised  many  powers  and  gifts  which 
were  not  transmitted  to  the  bishops,  elders,  pastors,  and 
teachers  of  the  church  in  later  ages.  1  Cor.  xii.  7 — 11.  Wit- 
ness the  power  exercised  by  Peter,  in  the  case  of  Ananias  and 
Sapphira,  Acts  v. ;  of  Paul  in  the  ease  of  Elymas,  Acts  xiii. 
5 — 12;  and  of  the  incestuous  person  mentioned  in  1  Cor. 
V.  4,  5.  Without  the  other  extraordinary  gifts,  how  is  it 
possible  that  the  power  of  forgiving  sins  should  be  exercised 
agreeably  to  the  Divine  will,  and  how,  without  the  Divine 
approbation  or  sanction,  could  the  power  be  exercised  at  all? 
"Who  can  remit  sins  but  Grod  alone?"  The  language  is  meta- 
phorical and  borrowed  from  the  relation  between  a  creditor  and 
his  debtor.  Matt.  vi.  12. 

We  need  not,  therefore,  inquire  more  particularly  into  the 
power  the  Lord  Jesus  conferred  upon  his  apostles  by  these 
words.  It  is  enough  to  know  that  it  was  a  power  personal  to 
them,  Luke  xxiv,  49,  to  be  exercised  by  them  at  the  opening 
of  the  new  dispensation,  and  like  other  miraculous  powers 
conferred  on  the  apostles  for  the  same  purpose,  not  transmitted 
to  later  times. 

Luke  xxiv.  50,  51.  "And  he  led  them  out  as  far  as  to 
Bethany,  and  he  lifted  up  his  hands  and  blessed  them." 

Up  to  this  and  the  next  following  verse,  we  perceive  no 
break  whatever  in  the  narrative,  nor  anything  which  indicates 
a  change  of  place  or  of  time.  If  we  had  only  this  Gospel, 
we  could  not  avoid  the  conclusion  that  the  preceding  verses, 
from  the  36th  to  the  49th,  were  an  account  of  what  transpired 
in  the  apartment  in  which  Cleopas  and  his  companion  found 
the  eleven,  where  Jesus  also  afterwards  joined  them.  John 
does  not  tell  us  how  the  meeting  broke  up.  xx.  24,  25.  But 
Luke  says,  that  after  having  finished  his  discourse  with  them, 
he  led  them  out  of  the  city  as  far  as  to  Bethany.  When  they 
arrived  at  that  place,  "he  lifted  up  his  hands  and  blessed 
them,  and  it  came  to  pass  that  while  he  was  in  the  act  of 
blessing  them,  he  was  parted  {dceazfj)  from  them,  and  was 
carried  up  into  heaven." 

Were  we  to  read  an  account  like  this  in  a  profane  historian, 
such  as  Thucydides,  Plutarch,  or  Livy,  with  the  like  circum- 
stances, we  should  not  hesitate  to  understand  the  author  as 
intending  to  connect  all  the  events  narrated  with  the  time  and 
places  specified.  It  is  usual,  however,  with  commentators  to 
65 


514  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 

dislocate  these  verses  from  the  preceding  context,  and  apply 
them  to  the  ascension,  which  the  same  Evangelist  records  in 
Acts  i.  9.  There  are  several  particulars,  however,  which  tend 
strongly  to  show  that  the  two  places,  Luke  xxiv.  51,  and  Acts 
i.  9,  relate  to  different  ascensions. 

(1.)  The  ascension  which  the  Evangelist  here  describes  took 
place  at  Bethany,  which  was  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Olivet  on  the 
east,  fifteen  furlongs,  or  nearly  two  miles,  distant  from  Jeru- 
salem. John  xi.  18.  The  ascension  which  Luke  describes  in 
Acts  i.  10,  was  from  Mount  Olivet,  a  Sabbath  day's  journey, 
only  2000  cubits,  or  just  five  furlongs  from  Jerusalem,  accord- 
ing to  Josephus. 

(2.)  If  we  compare  the  two  accounts,  and  notice  particularly 
the  words  spoken  and  the  things  done,  and  the  circumstances 
under  which  they  were  done,  it  will  seem  very  extraordinary 
that  the  savie  author  should  write  two  accounts  of  the  smne 
event  so  differently.  In  the  gospel,  it  is  said,  Jesus  led  the 
apostles  from  Jerusalem  to  Bethany.  In  Acts  i.  2,  the 
author  does  not  inform  us  from  whence  the  Lord  or  the  apostles 
came,  nor  whether  they  proceeded  together  from  any  place. 

(3.)  In  the  Gospel,  Luke  does  not  mention  the  inquiry  of 
the  apostles  concerning  the  kingdom,  nor  our  Lord's  reply  to 
it.  Indeed,  he  records  nothing  as  having  been  said  by  them 
on  that  occasion.  They  appear  to  have  been  merely  listeners ; 
and  if  we  may  judge  from  the  state  of  mind  they  were  in  at 
that  time,  we  should  not  expect  their  thoughts  would  turn  to 
that  subject.  Nor  does  the  Evangelist  mention  the  cloud  or 
the  angels,  or  their  address  to  the  apostles ;  and  yet  he  assures 
us,  in  the  Acts,  i.  2,  that  he  brought  his  gospel  down  to  the 
day  in  which  the  Lord  {dvshjfd-/})  was  taken  up. 

(4.)  By  the  Gospel,  it  appears  that  the  Lord  lifted  up  his 
hands,  and  was  in  the  act  of  blessing  them,  when  he  was  sepa- 
rated from  them,  {oisffzr]  dri  auzcop,)  see  Luke  xxiv.  51,  a 
little  distance,  and  then  ascended  into  heaven;  nor  does  he 
say  that  the  apostles  saw  him  as  he  ascended.  In  the  Acts, 
where  his  final  ascension  is  described,  we  are  not  informed  that 
he  pronounced  his  blessing  upon  them,  but  his  last  words  were 
a  repetition  of  the  commission  he  had  given  them,  John  xx.  21, 
and  thereupon  he  ascended  visibly,  while  they  gazed  after  him 
with  astonishment,  never  having  seen  him  depart  from  them 
in  that  way  before.  There  are  other  differences  in  the  two 
accounts,  which  we  may  hereafter  notice. 

(5.)  Barnabas,  the  companion  of  Paul,  whose  character  is 
described  in  Acts  xiv.  4,  14;  xi.  24,  in  his  first  epistle,  which 
is  undoubtedly  genuine,  has  recorded  in  unequivocal  language, 
his  own  belief  upon  this  point,  and  without  doubt  the  belief  of 


EVENTS  OF  THE  DAY  OF  CHRIST'S  RESURRECTION.  515 

the  churches  in  his  day.  In  giving  the  reason  why  he  and  his 
fellow-Christians  observed  the  eighth,  (Ezek.  xliii.  27,  that  is 
the  first)  day  of  the  week,  he  says,  "that  Jesus  rose  from  the 
dead  on  that  day,  and  on  the  same  day,  after  he  had  appeared 
to  the  disciples,  he  ascended  into  heaven."* 

His  words  are :  "  Therefore  do  we  celebrate  the  eighth  day 
with  joy,  because  on  that  day  Jesus  both  rose  again  from  the 
dead,  and  having  appeared,  also  ascended  into  heaven." 

This  is  very  remarkable  testimony.  Barnabas  was  a  cotem- 
porary  with  Luke,  and  both  of  them  companions  of  Paul,  and  it 
is  scarcely  possible  that  either  should  be  ignorant  of  the  belief 
of  the  others  upon  this  interesting  question.  This  consideration 
is  conclusive,  if  the  genuineness  of  this  epistle  of  Barnabas  is 
well  established. 

(6.)  Finally:  the  temple  services  appointed  for  this  day  con- 
firm this  conclusion.  In  1  Cor.  v.  7,  the  apostle  Paul  denomi- 
nates "Christ  our  Passover,  sacrificed  for  us,"  and  in  1  Cor.  xv. 
20,  23,  he  denominates  him  the  "first-fruits"  and  the  first-fruits 
of  them  that  slept.  See  Rom.  xi.  16.  In  the  former  of  these 
places,  he  has  allusion  to  such  passages  as  Exod.  xii.  5,  46; 
Numb.  ix.  12;  Ps.  xxxiv.  20;  Isa.  liii.  7.  See  John  i.  29; 
Eph.  V.  2;  1  Pet.  i.  19;  Rev.  v.  6,  12.  In  the  latter,  he  al- 
ludes to  Lev.  xxiii.  9 — 16,  with  which  compare  Lev.  xxii,  19,  20. 
These  types  were  closely  connected  in  design  or  signification 
and  fulfilment.  On  the  evening  preceding  the  Passover,  it  was 
the  custom  to  go  over  the  brook  Kedron,  and  gather  a  sheaf  of 
the  first-fruits  of  the  harvest  and  bring  it  to  the  priest  as  a 
wave-offering  to  the  Lord.  This  sheaf  "was  laid  up  before  the 
Lord  until  the  morrow  after  the  Sabbath,"  when  it  was  brought 
forth  and  waved  by  the  priest.  At,  or  near  the  time,  and  near 
the  place,  it  is  probable,  where  this  sheaf  was  gathered,  our 
Lord  was  apprehended.  The  sheaf  was  laid  up,  according  to 
the  ordinance,  and  kept  until  the  Sabbath  was  past;  and  on 

*  A/3  x.:iu  u.yo/uev  tw  iijuifiu.v  tuv  ■>yifoiiv  ek  t;)V  fiK^poo'uviiv  h  «  icu.i  o  Jncrcu;  avi^rx  iK  vixpuv 
Kui  <fu.vifoi)biti  avi^n  ik  Tcuc  ciupciviuc-     Upoii  this  passagc  Menardus  saj's: 

"Hie  videtur  dicere  Christum  ascendisse  in  ccelum  die  Dominica,  imo  eodem 
die  quo  resurrexit,  quod  falsum  est."  And  Hefele,  in  his  edition  of  the  Apos- 
tolic Fathers,  notes  on  this  passage:  "  Nonne  Barnabas  Dominum  die  Domi- 
nica ad  coelos  ascendisse  contendit?"  Our  Lord's  final  ascension,  on  the  40th 
day,  occurred  on  the  5th  day  of  the  week  (or  Thursday)  and  of  course  the 
ascension  which  Barnabas  refers  to,  was  different  in  two  respects: — it  occurred 
on  the  8th  or  1st  day  of  the  week,  and  on  the  very  day  on  which  he  arose 
from  the  dead.  Menardus  thinks,  quod  falsum  est;  he  was  mistaken  in  this; 
but  it  will  be  admitted,  we  presume,  by  all  impartial  persons,  that  Barnabas 
knew  his  own  opinion,  and  also  what  was  the  common  belief  of  the  apostles 
and  his  fellow-Christians.  The  ancient  Latin  translation  of  this  passage  is : 
"Propter  quod  agimus  diem  octavum  in  leetationem,  in  quo  et  Jesus  resurrexit 
a  mortuis,  et  apparuit  et  ascendit  in  coelos." 


516  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE.    ■ 

this  day — the  day  of  our  Lord's  resurrection — it  had  heen 
brought  forth  and  waved  by  the  priest  as  an  offering  of  the 
first-fruits  in  the  temple,  before  the  Lord.  This  sheaf,  as  we 
suppose,  was  typical  of  the  risen  body  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and 
the  waving  it  by  the  priest  shadowed  forth  the  presentation  of 
the  risen  body  of  the  Lord  within  the  veil,  in  the  upper  sanc- 
tuary; by  which  he  superseded  and  annulled  the  type  which 
had  been  appointed  to  continue  only  until  it  should  be  thus 
fulfilled  in  his  human  person.  If  we  reject  this  conclusion,  'we 
must  allow  a  typical  efficacy,  or  import,  to  the  ceremonies  and 
services  performed  in  the  temple  on  this  day,  among  which  was 
the  sacrificing  of  a  lamb,  Lev.  xxiii.  12,  as  well  as  the  offering 
of  the  sheaf  of  the  first-fruits,  after  the  veil  of  the  temple 
had  been  disparted,  and  the  Levitical  economy  itself  was  done 
away. 

Luke  xxiv.  51 — 53.  "And  it  came  to  pass,  that  while  he 
blessed  them,  he  was  parted  from  them,  and  carried  up  into 
heaven,  and  they  worshipped  him  and  returned  to  Jerusalem 
with  great  joy,  and  were  continually  in  the  temple  praising  and 
blessing  God." 

And  so  it  was  that  [iv  tco  vjXoytcv  ahxov  ahrooz)  while  he  was 
in  the  act  of  pronouncing  his  blessing  upon  them  [oce^rrj  diz 
abrcou),  he  withdrew  a  little  space  from  them,  see  Luke  xxiv,  51, 
and  after  that  was  borne  upward  to  heaven :  which  sight,  and 
the  other  things  they  had  seen  and  heard  during  that  evening, 
so  deeply  impressed  and  convinced  them  of  his  Divine  nature, 
that  before  leaving  the  place  where  they  then  stood,  [npoaxui^yj- 
aavTs:;)  they  offered  unto  him  Divine  worship.  Luke  iv.  8 ;  Acts 
xxiv.  11 ;  Heb.  i.  6.  Thereupon  they  returned  the  same  evening 
from  Bethany  to  Jerusalem;  and  from  that  day  onward  they 
appeared  publicly  in  the  temple  praising  and  blessing  God. 

Such  appears  to  be  the  sense  of  these  concluding  verses. 
The  Evangelist  is  careful  to  say  that  the  disciples  returned 
from  Bethany  to  Jerusalem  with  great  joy ;  as  if  to  contrast 
the  state  of  mind  in  which  the  Lord  left  them  with  the  alarms, 
and  sorrows,  and  fears,  and  doubts  which  had  agitated  and 
oppressed  them  during  the  day.  How  tranquilly  and  yet  how 
confidently  they  afterwards  spoke  of  the  interview  to  Thomas! 
John  XX.  25.  They  no  longer  sought  concealment  through 
fear — although  they  held  their  private  assemblies,  John  xx.  26, 
perhaps  in  obedience  to  the  Saviour's  express  command.  They 
may  have  even  anticipated  his  appearance  among  them  again, 
and  with  that  hope  may  have  frequently  convened  in  private. 
Matt,  xviii.  20.  Perhaps  the  Evangelist  had  it  also  in  view,  to 
record  the  fulfilment  of  the  Lord's  promise  to  the  eleven  when 
they  were  last  assembled  together.     "Yet  a  little  while,"  said 


EVENTS  THAT  FOLLOWED  THE  LORD'S  RESURRECTION.      517 

he,  "and  ye  shall  not  see  me,  and  again  a  little  while  and  ye 
shall  see  me,  because  I  go  to  the  Father."^  John  xvi.  16. 

These  words,  in  themselves  .very  plain,  were  to  them  very 
obscure,  verses  17,  18.  This  led  him  to  explain  his  meaning. 
"Verily,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  ye  shall  weep  and  lament, 
but  the  world  shall  rejoice,  and  ye  shall  be  sorrowful,  but  your 
sorrow  shall  be  turned  into  joy,''  verse  20.  And  ye  now  there- 
fore have  {shall  have — see  Mill,  New  Test.)  sorrow,  but  I  will 
see  you  again,  and  your  heart  shall  rejoice,  and  your  joy  no 
man  taketh  (no  man  shall  take,  Mill,  New  Test.)  from  you. 
We  have  seen  how  sorrowful  the  disciples  were  at  the  death  of 
the  Lord.  Mark  xvi.  10;  Luke  xxiv.  17;  John  xx.ll.  But 
now  their  sorrow,  as  he  predicted,  was  turned  into  joy.  The 
Saviour's  promise  to  them  was  now  fulfilled.  The  fearful  peril, 
John  xvi.  21,  and  trial  were  past.  Yet,  if  we  notice  carefully 
the  words  of  the  Saviour,  John  xvi.  16,  their  sorrow  was  to 
continue  during  his  absence  from  them,  and  until  his  return 
from  the  Father.  For  the  reason  of  his  return  to  them,  was 
not  that  he  was  about  to  die ;  nor  because  his  spirit  was  about 
to  depart  into  the  world  of  spirits,  but  because  he  was  going  to 
the  Father— that  is,  was  going  to  ascend  in  his  body,  to  the 
Father:  after  which  they  should  see  him  again.  Thus  under- 
stood, this  passage  confirms  the  interpretation  before  given  of 
John  XX.  17,  and  proves  that  our  Lord,  before  he  appeared  to 
any  of  the  disciples,  except  Mary  Magdalen,  had  ascended  to 
the  Father.     See  notes  on  John  xx.  17. 


CHAPTER    XIV. 

Events  that  followed  the  Lord's  resurrection. — Effect  of  the  first  interview  of  the 
Lord  with  the  apostles  after  his  resurrection. — Thomas's  absence. — His  in- 
credulty. — His  presence. — The  Lord's  condescension. — The  consequences  of 
Thomas's  demand. — The  seven  disciples  at  the  sea  of  Tiberias. — The  Lord's 
appearance. — The  special  reason  of  this  appearance. — The  Lord  addresses 
Simon  Peter. — Mistake  of  the  brethren. — The  appearance  in  Galilee. — Scope  of 
the  apostolic  commission. — Infant  baptism. — Appearance  to  James. — A  para- 
phrase.—  Return  from  Mount  Olivet  to  Jerusalem. — John's  baptism. — Miscon- 
ception of  the  apostles. — The  Lord's  ascension. — The  apostles'  employment 
until  the  Pentecost. — The  day  of  Pentecost. 

EVENTS   THAT   FOLLOWED   THE   LORD'S   RESURRECTION. 

Luke  xxiv.  52.     "And  they  worshipped  him,  and  returned  to 
Jerusalem  with  great  joy." 

From  this  verse,  we  learn  the  effect  of  the  first  interview 
of  the  Lord  with  the  apostles  after  his  resurrection.     It  is  just 


618  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 

■what  we  should  have  anticipated;  for  he  certainly  was  not 
straitened  in  means  for  convincing  them.  By  one  appear- 
ance, Mary  Magdalen  was  convinced.  John  xx.  16.  One 
appearance  and  his  familiar  salutation,  convinced  the  women 
he  met  in  the  morning,  on  their  return  from  the  sepulchre, 
Matt,  xxviii.  9;  and  one  view,  as  we  shall  soon  see,  left  not  a 
doubt  in  the  mind  of  Thomas,  the  most  incredulous  of  all  the 
apostles;  and  why  should  not  one  appearance  and  such  proofs 
of  the  identity  of  his  person  convince  the  rest?  John,  in  speak- 
ing of  this  interview,  says  expressly,  "that  they  rejoiced  when 
they  saw  him;"  which  implies,  that  the  distressing  fears  and 
doubts,  which  Luke  particularly  mentions,  were  all  removed. 
They  were  convinced  also  of  his  Divine  nature;  for  they  wor- 
shipped him.  They  worshipped  him  afterwards  again  when  he 
Sippeared  to  them  and  other  disciples  in  Galilee.  Matt,  xxviii. 
17.  It  is  an  error  therefore  to  suppose  that  the  apostles  first 
began  to  worship  him  after  his  last  visible  ascension  from  Mount 
Olivet,  Acts  i.  9 — 12 ;  for  this  would  imply,  that  until  then, 
they  doubted  his  Divine  nature — a  supposition  which  is  dis- 
proved by  the  verse  we  are  considering. 

The  place  from  whence  they  returned  was  Bethany,  (verse  50 ;) 
and  the  time  was  the  same  evening,  at  the  close  of  their  wor- 
ship, {■n:poaxuvr^aavze(;  ahzov  bTtearpeipav.)  Their  joy  was  great 
— it  was  full.  John  xv.  11.  It  was  the  joy  of  triumph;  their 
Lord  and  Master  had  conquered  death.  Fear  was  no  longer 
possible.  Accordingly  the  Evangelist  adds  in  conclusion  of  his 
gospel; 

Luke  xxiv.  53.  "And  were  continually  in  the  temple  prais- 
ing and  blessing  God." 

He  means  that  from  the  day  of  the  Lord's  resurrection  for- 
ward, until  they  received  the  promise  of  the  Father,  (during 
which  time  they  were  commanded  to  remain  at  Jerusalem,)  they 
openly  frequented  the  temple  and  offered  their  praises  and 
thanksgivings  to  God.  A  striking  effect  of  the  grace  of  Christ ! 
They  no  longer  closed  the  doors  when  they  met,  foi'  fear  of  the 
Jews.* 

*  See  note  on  John  xx.  19.  It  is  remarkable  that  when  the  disciples  assem. 
bled  on  the  eighth  day  after  the  Lord's  resurrection,  the  apostles  are  not  repre- 
sented as  having  closed  the  doors  of  the  house  or  apartment  where  they  met, 
for  fear,  but  rather,  as  we  may  snppose,  for  privacy.  The  reason  why  the  Evan- 
gelist mentions  that  the  doors  were  shut  on  this  occasion,  is  to  show  the  sur- 
prising manner  of  the  Lord's  appearance  to  Thomas.  It  was  one  of  the  things 
which  convinced  him  ;  and  it  agreed  perfectly  with  the  manner  of  his  appear- 
ance a  week  before,  an  account  of  which  he  had  no  doubt  heard.  Accordingly 
in  describing  the-first  appearance,  the  Evangelist  tells  us  explicitly  that  the 
motive  for  shutting  the  doors  was/sa/-  of  the  Jews,  but  in  describing  his  second 
appearance  he  assigns  no  motive  for  the  act,  yet  mentions  the  fact  as  in  itself 
important  for  the  reason  already  suggested. 


EVENTS  THAT  FOLLOWED  THE  LORD'S  RESURRECTION.      519 

Although  they  were  known  to  be  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  and 
were  surrounded  by  his  enemies,  and  theirs  for  his  sake,  they 
appeared  without  disguise,  in  that  very  place,  where  they  could 
not  fail  to  be  seen  and  known. 

Those  who  limit  the  application  of  this  verse  to  the  short 
interval  between  the  Lord's  visible  ascension  and  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  leave  us  to  conjecture  what  were  the  emotions  and 
employments  of  the  apostles  during  the  forty  days  following 
the  resurrection.  But  no  violence  is  done  to  the  language  by 
extending  it,  as  we  do,  to  the  whole  interval  between  the  day  of 
the  Lord's  resurrection  and  the  Pentecost.  On  the  contrary, 
it  is  the  plain  and  obvious  interpretation,  and  the  only  one 
which  adequately  represents  the  power  of  Christ  over  the  minds 
and  hearts  of  the  apostles.    See  note  on  Luke  xxiv.  49. 

John  xx.  24.  "But  Thomas,*  one  of  the  twelve,  called 
Didymus,  was  not  with  them  when  Jesus  came." 

Consequently  he  was  not  one  of  those  who  accompanied  the 
Lord  to  Bethany.  He  had  not  taken  part  in  their  worship,  nor 
did  he  share  in  the  joys  of  his  fellow  apostles.  No  cause  is 
assigned  for  his  absence.  The  fact  only  is  stated.  We  may 
infer,  perhaps,  from  what  is  said  of  him  in  John  xi.  8 — 16,  that 
he  was  a  man  of  bold  and  resolute  disposition,  if  not  obstinate 
and  self-willed.  If  he  had  heard  the  report  of  the  Lord's  re- 
surrection, he  treated  it,  no  doubt,  as  the  others  did  at  first,  as 
an  idle  tale,  unworthy  of  his  attention.  Luke  xxiv.  11.  How- 
ever this  may  be, 

John  xx.  25.  "The  other  disciples,"  or  some  of  them,  hav- 
ing casually  found  him,  or  sought  him  out  perhaps,  "said  unto 
him,  We  have  seen  the  Lord."  It  is  probable  much  more  was 
said  than  is  here  recorded.  The  words  imply  that  the  Lord's 
resurrection  was  spoken  of.  Judging  from  what  we  know  of 
human  nature  we  should  not  unreasonably  suppose  the  wonder- 
ful facts  recorded  by  Luke  were  circumstantially  related  to  him 
— how  and  where  they  were  assembled  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week — the  hour  Avhen — the  sudden  entry  of  Cleopas  and  his 
companion — the  story  they  told — the  sudden  and  mysterious 
appearance  of  the  Lord — the  exhibition  he  made  of  the  wounds 
in  his  hands,  his  feet,  and  his  side — his  partaking  of  food — 
their  own  emotions — the  discourse  he  held  with  them,  his  lead- 
ing them  out  of  the  city  to  Bethany,  and  the  manner  in  which 
he  left  them.  It  is  probable  also  they  repeated  the  very  words 
he  used  while  exhibiting  to   them  his  wounds.     "Handle  me 

*  Thomas  is  a  Hebrew  name  which  signifies  the  same  as  Didymus;  a  Greek 
word  or  name;  so  that  Didymus  is  rather  a  translation  of  the  proper  name  of 
this  apostle  than  an  addition  to  it.     Both  signify  twin  or  twins. 


520  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 

and  see" — satisfy  yourselves  by  your  sense  of  feeling,  if  you 
do  not  trust  your  other  senses;  a  test  which  they  would  natu- 
rally decline,  as  well  through  awe,  as  because  they  were  already 
fully  convinced  of  the  reality  of  his  presence.*  It  was  to  this 
test  of  the  touch,  Thomas  in  his  reply  plainly  alludes. 

John  xx.  25.  "But  he  said  unto  them,  except  I  [also]  shall 
see  in  his  hands  the  print  of  the  nails,  and  even  put  my  finger 
into  the  print  of  the  nails  and  thrust  my  hand  into  his  side,  I 
will  not  believe,"  or  more  exactly,   "I  will  never  believe." 

In  reading  these  words  we  should  lay  a  strong  emphasis  on  the 
pronoun  I.  Except  /shall  see,  &c.,  /will  never  believe.  The 
meaning  may  be  paraphrased  thus:  "You  were  quite  too  easily 
convinced  of  a  matter  so  extraordinary  as  that  you  speak  of. 
To  convince  me,  I  must  not  only  see  for  myself  the  print  of  the 
nails  in  his  flesh,  as  you  say  you  saw  it;  but  I  must  feel  it  with 
my  finger,  which  you  did  not  venture  to  do.  Nor  would  this  be 
enough;  I  must  lay  my  hand  on  his  side,  which  you  imagine 
you  saw,  having  in  it  the  very  wound  made  by  the  soldier's 
spear.  Had  I  been  there,  /  certainly  should  not  have  declined 
any  test  possible  for  me  to  apply ;  less  than  this  should  not 
have  convinced  you." 

We  can  hardly  suppose  that  Thomas  would  have  employed 
such  peculiar  terms  to  express  his  incredulity,  or  specified  such 
extraordinary  tests  to  insure  his  belief,  unless  the  other  disci- 
ples had  related  to  him  the  particulars  of  their  interview  with 
the  Lord,  as  we  have  supposed.  Assuming  that  they  did  so, 
the  reply  of  Thomas  reflects  upon  them,  on  the  one  hand,  as 
timid  and  credulous;  and  on  the  other,  sets  up  by  way  of  con- 
trast, his  own  superior  courage  and  discretion.  Thus  con- 
sidered it  is  of  a  piece  with  what  John  says  of  him,  xi.  8 — 16, 
when  the  Lord  proposed  to  go  into  Judea,  thereby  exposing 
himself  to  the  enmity  of  the  Jews.  All  the  other  disciples,  in- 
fluenced by  their  affection,  endeavoured  to  dissuade  him. 
Thomas,  for  some  reason,  was  of  a  different  mind,  which  he 
expressed  in  terms  which  showed  both  his  sense  of  the  danger 
and  disregard  of  it. 

John  xx.  26.  "And  after  eight  days,  again  his  disciples 
were  within,  and  Thomas  with  them:  Then  came  Jesus,  the 
doors  being  shut,  and  stood  in  the  midst,  and  said.  Peace  be 
unto  you." 

We  are  not  to  understand  that  this  second  appearance  of  the 
Lord  to   his  male  disciples,  occurred  eight  days  after  Thomas 

*  If  we  suppose  they  declined  the  test  of  touch,  we  may  account  for  the  addi- 
tional proof  the  Lord  gave  them,  of  taking  food  from  their  hands,  and  eating  it 
before  them,  Luke  xxiv.  41 — 43,  a  test  or  proof  approximating  to  that  he  had 
proposed,  which  otherwise  would  have  been  quite  unnecessary. 


THOMAS    IS   PRESENT.  521 

had  thus  expressed  his  unbelief;  but  eight  days  inclusive,  after 
his  first  appearance,  mentioned  in  verse  19,  Yet  it  may  have 
been  nearly  as  long,  for  aught  that  is  said,  after  the  interview 
of  Thomas  with  his  fellow  disciples,  just  spoken  of.  On  this 
occasion  Thomas  was  present.  Considering  the  fact  that  the 
Lord  had  already  appeared  at  five  difi"erent  times  to  some  of  the 
disciples,  and  had  promised  to  appear  to  all  of  them  in  Galilee, 
it  is  not  improbable  that  those  who  had  seen  him  indulged  the 
hope,  that  he  would  often  appear  to  them,  if  not  whenever  they 
met;  and  this  hope  or  expectation  being  known  to  Thomas,  may 
have  had  some  influence  on  his  mind.  Indeed,  if  we  reflect  how 
blind  the  disciples  were  to  the  future,  and  hoAV  ignorant  they 
■were  of  the  actual  posture  of  their  nation,  and  of  the  Divine  judg- 
ments which  were  soon  to  come  upon  the  people,  it  is  not  im- 
probable they  thought  he  intended  before  long,  to  establish  his 
kingdom  over  them  in  outward  glory;  and  consequently  to  re- 
turn and  permanently  to  remain  with  them.  However  this  may 
be,  we  may  at  least  believe  that  Thomas,  although  sceptical  and 
without  any  such  hopes,  was  not  free  from  misgivings.  Or  if 
the  evidence  does  not  warrant  so  favourable  a  judgment,  we  can 
confidently  affirm,  that  his  Divine  and  compassionate  Lord 
brought  him,  in  spite  of  his  gloomy  and  unreasonable  disbelief, 
into  the  circle  of  his  friends,  that  he  might  comply  with  his  un- 
reasonable exactions. 

We  remark  again,  that  the  doors  of  their  apartment  were 
shut  and  probably  barred,  as  on  the  Sunday  evening  before. 
But  it  is  not  said  that  this  was  done  through  fear  of  the  Jews. 
Comp.  verses  19 — 26.  Their  fears,  we  have  seen,  were  all  dis- 
pelled. They  appeared  publicly  in  the  temple,  relying  confi- 
dently upon  the  power  and  providence  of  the  Saviour,  by  whose 
express  command  they  made  Jerusalem,  for  the  time  being,  the 
place  of  their  abode.  On  this  occasion,  the  sudden  and  mys- 
terious appearance  of  the  Lord  did  not  occasion  any  fear  or 
surprise  to  those  who  had  seen  him  before.  If  it  did,  the  fact 
is  not  mentioned,  nor  is  it  probable.  All  but  Thomas  were 
fully  convinced  that  he  was  indeed  the  same  compassionate 
Friend  and  Master  they  had  ever  known  him.  It  was  the  de- 
sign of  the  Saviour,  and  if  we  may  so  say,  his  effort,  at  his  first 
appearance  to  them,  thoroughly  to  dispel  their  fears,  and  for 
this  purpose  he  had  led  them  forth  from  the  city,  as  he  had  often 
done,  to  Bethany  before  he  left  them.  His  salutation,  "Peace 
to  you,"  uttered  in  his  well-known  voice,  was  suflicient  to  ward 
off  fear  and  even  surprise.  Their  presence  and  composure 
would  naturally  strengthen  Thomas  for  the  ordeal  to  which  his 
incredulity  had  subjected  him. 

We  may  imagine  that  instantly  the  Saviour's  eye  rested  upon 
66 


522  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

Thomas,  and  the  eye  of  Thomas  on  him,  and  that  alone  was 
quite  sufficient  to  carry  conviction  to  his  heart,  before  a  word 
■was  spoken.  But  the  address  of  the  Saviour,  and  the  repeti- 
tion of  his  unseemly  words,  one  by  one,  must  have  awakened 
emotions  of  shame  and  confusion  as  well  as  sorrow. 

John  xx.  27,  28.  "Then  saith  he  to  Thomas,  Reach  hither 
thy  finger,  and  behold  my  hands ;  and  reach  hither  thy  hand 
and  thrust  it  into  my  side ;  and  be  not  faithless,  but  believing. 
And  Thomas  answered  and  said  unto  him,  My  Lord  and  my 
God." 

The  repetition  of  the  very  words  of  Thomas,  was  an  indubi- 
table proof  of  the  omniscience  of  Jesus,  and  consequently  of 
his  Divine  nature.  Hence  the  confession  of  Thomas.  It  was 
a  similar  display  of  this  attribute  which  convinced  Nathaniel  of 
his  exalted  character  even  before  the  Lord  entered  publicly  on 
his  ministry.     John  i.  47 — 51. 

Some  commentators  regard  this  expression  of  Thomas  as  a 
mere  exclamation,  indicating  his  astonishment  and  nothing 
more;  while  others,  among  whom  is  Beza,  regard  it  as  the  most 
decisive  proof  of  the  Deity  of  Jesus.  We  suppose,  that  Tho- 
mas meant  to  recognize  his  Divine,  as  well  as  his  human  nature, 
by  this  twofold  designation.  Regarded  as  a  mere  exclamation, 
such  as  we  sometimes  hear  in  common  life,  it  would  not  be  easy 
to  exculpate  the  apostle  from  profaneness ;  but  as  the  confession 
of  his  faith,  it  was  a  religious  act.  And  why  may  we  not  so 
regard  it?  Of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  from  the  dead,  he  had 
now  a  full  and  perfect  conviction,  without  making  trial  of  any 
of  the  tests  he  had  rashly  demanded.  This  fact  alone  proved 
his  Divine  nature.  Rom.  i.  4.  It  explained  what  he  meant  when 
he  said,  "I  and  my  Father  are  one."  "I  came  forth  from  the 
Father,  and  am  come  into  the  world.  Again  I  leave  the  world 
and  go  to  the  Father."  "And  now,  0  Father,  glorify  thou  me 
with  thyself,  with  the  glory  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world 
was."  These  sayings  Thomas  had  heard,  John  xiv.  5,  although 
he  had  not  understood  them.  But  the  living  person  of  Jesus, 
bearing  in  his  flesh  the  very  wounds  of  crucifixion,  declared  the 
sense,  beyond  a  doubt,  in  which  they  were  to  be  understood. 
Thomas  did  not  need  to  be  divinely  inspired  to  appreciate  the 
force  of  such  a  proof,  any  more  than  we  do ;  and  his  expression, 
thus  regarded,  is  an  energetic,  full,  and  appropriating  confes- 
sion of  his  heartfelt  belief.  This  is  proved  by  our  Lord's  reply 
to  him. 

John  xx.  29.  "Jesus  saith  to  'him:  Thomas,  because  thou 
hast  seen  me,  thon  hast  believed.  Blessed  are  they  that  have 
not  seen  and  yet  have  believed." 

Surely,  if  this  hitherto  doubting  or  disbeliving   disciple  ex- 


THE  lord's  condescension.  523 

pressed  nothing  more  than  his  surprise  or  amazement,  the 
omniscient  Saviour  would  not  have  accepted  it  as  a  confession 
of  his  belief. 

It  is  remarkable,  that  the  Evangelist  records  nothing  more 
of  this  interview  than  the  words  quoted.  He  does  not  say  how 
long  it  continued,  nor  how  it  was  terminated,  nor  what  passed 
between  Thomas  and  his  fellow  disciples  after  the  Lord  left 
them.  But  if  we  may  suppose  that  he  appeared  on  this  occa- 
sion solely  for  the  conviction  of  Thomas,  what  an  exhibition  of 
grace  to  this  doubting  and  perhaps  wayward  disciple !  And 
what  an  impressive  illustration  of  the  character  which  the 
apostle  Paul  ascribes  to  him,  Heb.  iv.  15,  encouraging  the  belief, 
that  although  he  does  not  now  visibly  exhibit  himself  to  his 
doubting  disciples  as  he  did  then,  yet  he  is  not  unmindful  of 
their  weaknesses  and  frailties,  nor  remiss  in  the  use  of  the 
means  best  suited  to  remove  them.  We  pass  on  to  the  con- 
cluding sentence,  which  may  be  more  literally  expressed  thus: 
Blessed  are  those  not  seeing  (of  frfj  idovzez)  yet  believing  (xac 
mareoaavzeci.) 

These  words  prove  that  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  is 
an  essential  article  of  the  Christian  faith.  On  this  ground  the 
apostle  Paul  says,  without  qualification  or  reserve,  if  Christ  be 
not  risen,  our  faith  in  him  is  vain,  and  the  preaching  of  the 
gospel  is  bearing  false  witness.  1  Cor.  xv.  14,  15.  Up  to  this 
moment,  Thomas  did  not  believe  the  fact  of  the  Lord's  resur- 
rection, and  his  unbelief  involved,  as  a  necessary  consequence, 
that  his  Lord  and  Master  was  a  deceiver.  But  Thomas  was 
one  of  those  whom  he  had  chosen,  and  could  not  therefore  be 
given  over  to  perdition.  John  vi.  70;  xvii.  12.  Yet  we  infer 
from  these  words,  that  through  his  unbelief,  he  failed  of  a 
degree  of  blessedness  which  would  otherwise  have  been  within 
his  reach. 

It  is  more  important,  however,  to  notice  the  great  principle 
which  our  Lord  here  declares,  the  principle  which  in  fact  dis- 
tinguishes the  dispensation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  from  that  of  our 
Lord's  personal  ministry.  The  effect  of  ocular  or  sensible  evi- 
dence had  been  tried  upon  the  whole  Jewish  people,  and  had 
failed  of  its  purpose.  John  xii.  37 — 40.  God  had,  as  it  were, 
just  concluded  a  great  experiment  upon  a  large  nation,  for  the 
information  of  all  creatures,  one  object  of  which  was  to  prove, 
that  it  was  not  in  the  nature  of  evidence,  however  miraculous, 
though  subjected  to  the  senses  of  men,  to  beget  faith  in  them. 
A  new  agency  was  necessary,  by  which  this  principle  could  be 
imparted  to  fallen  man  as  God's  gift,  by  means  more  in  har- 
mony with  the  general  order  of  the  Divine  government  and 
that  economy  or  order  of  things  which  was  about  to  ensue. 


524  NOTES   ON    SCRIPTURE. 

The  fact  of  the  resurrection  was  to  be  established  at  that  time 
for  all  ages,  until  the  end  of  the  world  and  the  second  coming 
of  the  Lord,  mainly  through  the  very  testimony  which  Thomas 
had  rejected;  and  it  was  because  Thomas  himself  was  one  of 
those,  through  whose  testimony  the  world  would  be  required  to 
believe,  that  the  Lord  appeared  to  him  especially  to  remove  his 
doubts.  Yet  if  it  was  right  for  Thomas  to  reject  the  testimony 
of  his  fellow-disciples,  whom  he  knew  to  be  as  credible  and 
trustworthy  as  himself,  it  would  be  right  for  others  afterwards 
to  reject  his  testimony  as  well  as  theirs  to  the  same  fact, 
without  the  other  evidence  which  he  demanded.  Consequently, 
to  perpetuate  the  knowledge  of  the  fact  of  the  Lord's  resurrec- 
tion, recourse  must  be  had  to  a  continued  miraculous  inter- 
vention, from  age  to  age,  upon  the  demand  of  each  individual; 
in  other  words,  the  age  of  miracles  could  never  cease,  or  rather 
miracles  would  cease  to  be  miracles,  by  becoming  the  established 
order  of  things,  and  consequently  lose  their  effect.  Such  a  de- 
mand in  reality  denies  to  God  the  right  to  establish  the  order 
of  things,  in  which  we  live,  without  relinquishing  his  authority 
to  command  our  belief  upon  such  evidence,  as  we  receive  and 
act  upon  as  sufficient  on  all  other  subjects.  Yet  a  dispensation 
of  miraculous  evidence,  as  has  been  remarked,  had  been  tried 
upon  a  whole  nation,  without  any  saving  effect.  Judging  from 
observation  and  experience,  and  from  what  we  know  of  the 
human  heart,  we  have  no  reason  to  believe,  that  if  the  miracu- 
lous powers  exercised  by  the  apostles  under  their  first  com- 
mission, had  been  continued  in  the  Church  until  the  present 
day,  they  would,  without  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  have 
been  attended  with  any  better  effect  upon  the  Gentiles,  than 
they  had  upon  the  Jews  during  the  personal  ministry  of  our 
Lord.     Luke  xvi.  31. 

These  considerations  show  the  futility  of  the  argument  of 
infidels,  "that  an  infallible  revelation  can  come  to  man  through 
the  senses  alone — that  it  cannot  even  be  recorded  without  losing 
its  infallibility,  or  be  transmitted  even  from  a  single  generation 
without  becoming  at  once  a  fallible  record,  and  therefore  falli- 
ble evidence."  We  may  concede  the  proposition,  and  inquire 
what  does  it  prove  ?  Does  it  prove  that  God  should  have 
established  a  perpetual  dispensation  of  miraculous  evidence 
addressed  to  the  senses  of  men,  in  order  to  authenticate  his 
words?  He  made  sufficient  trial  of  such  evidence,  without 
producing  any  reforming  or  saving  influence  upon  those  who 
enjoyed  the  advantages  of  it.  Does  it  prove  that  historical  or 
moral  evidence,  such  as  men  act  upon  in  matters  of  private 
or  social  interest,  cannot  be  made  effectual  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
•to  accomplish  the  Divine  purposes,  by  working  faith  in  men, 


THE   SEVEN   DISCIPLES   AT   THE    SEA   OF   TIBERIAS,         525 

and  thereby  "uniting  tlicra  to  Christ?  This  inquiry  needs  no 
answer.  Even  philosophy  teaches  us  that  there  are  other  and 
surer  means  of  attaining  the  truth  than  the  bodily  senses.  All 
men  habitually  act  in  their  most  important  concerns  upon  the 
testimony  of  others,  and  that,  too,  without  any  spiritual  agency 
or  Divine  influence  to  enlighten  or  incline  them.  And  such 
evidence  would  be  sufiicient  in  the  concerns  of  religion  also,  if 
the  hearts  of  men  were  willing  to  receive  it.  Hence  the  office 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  to  magnify  evidence,  nor  to  incline 
men  to  believe,  without  reasonable  and  sufiicient  grounds  of 
belief;  but  to  prepare  or  incline  their  hearts  to  receive  Divine 
truth  upon  such  evidence  as  efi'ectually  convinces  them  in  their 
worldly  concerns.     See  Matt.  xvi.  1 — 4. 

But  why,  it  may  be  inquired,  is  it  more  blessed  to  believe 
upon  the  testimony  of  others  than  upon  the  evidence  of  our 
senses?  As  a  general  proposition,  having  respect  to  all  kinds 
of  truth,  it  cannot  be  affirmed,  nor  is  it  what  the  Saviour 
intended;  but  restricted  to  the  particular  fact  of  our  Lord's 
resurrection  it  is  not  difficult  to  show  the  reason :  For  a  heart- 
felt belief  of  this  fact,  by  those  not  having  ocular  evidence  of 
it,  is  wrought  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  John  vi.  29,  44,  45,  whose 
office  it  is  to  do  much  more  than  influence  the  understanding. 
Were  his  work  to  end  there,  no  saving  efi'ect  would  be  pro- 
duced. The  Holy  Spirit  gives  permanency  and  strength  to 
the  faith  which  he  originates,  and  makes  it  the  means  of 
renewing  the  whole  man.  Even  the  apostles,  and  those  other 
disciples  who  had  ocular  and  sensible  evidence  of  the  Lord's 
resurrection,  had  as  great  need  of  the  Spirit's  renewing  ener- 
gies as  others,  who  believed  on  other  grounds.  Herein  then 
consists  chiefly  the  blessedness  of  all  those  who  believe,  in 
which  Thomas  no  doubt  also  shared,  but  in  a  smaller  measure, 
perhaps,  on  account  of  his  unreasonable  and  sinful  doubts.  It 
is  the  Holy  Spirit's  work  to  make  the  truth  efficacious,  James 
i.  18;  John  xvi.  8,  the  beginning  of  which,  Philip,  i.  6;  Rom. 
viii.  28 — 30;  2  Cor.  i.  22;  Eph.  i.  14,  makes  their  salvation 
sure. 

John  xxi.  1.  "  After  these  things  Jesus  showed  himself 
again  to  the  disciples  at  the  sea  of  Tiberias,  and  on  this  wise 
showed  he  himself." 

The  manifestations  before  spoken  of  were  made  in  Judea,  and 
in  or  near  Jerusalem.  That  of  which  the  Evangelist  now 
speaks,  occurred  in  Galilee.  The  time  of  it  is  not  stated,  but 
we  may  infer  that  the  feast  of  the  Passover  was  ended,  and 
that  the  disciples  generally  had  left  Judea  for  their  homes  in 
Galilee,  where  the  Lord  had  promised  to  meet  them.  !Matt. 
xxviii.  7,  10;  xxvi.  32;  Mark  xiv.  28. 


526  NOTES  ON   SCRIPTURE. 

It  would  be  fruitless  to  inquire  why  he  appointed  Galilee  aa 
the  place  of  gathering  for  all  his  disciples.  Perhaps  he  did  it 
because  most  of  his  disciples  were  from  that  province.  Acts 
ii.  7.  It  is  not  improbable  that  the  apostles  mentioned  in  this 
chapter  had  gone  thither  in  obedience  to  this  command,  or 
were  on  their  way  from  Jerusalem  to  the  mountain  Jesus  had 
appointed.  Matt,  xxviii.  16.  The  manner  of  the  Lord's 
appearance  on  this  occasion,  and  the  circumstances  of  it,  are 
related  with  much  particularity,  for  some  reason  not  explained. 
It  does  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  these  notes  to  enter 
minutely  into  the  contents  of  the  chapter,  the  style  of  which 
is  very  peculiar.  We  observe  in  general,  that  John,  who  was 
present  and  an  eye-witness  of  what  he  relates,  is  the  only 
Evangelist  who  mentions  this  appearance.  Thomas,  the  doubt- 
ing disciple,  was  one  of  the  party.  Nathaniel,  it  is  probable, 
is  the  apostle  elsewhere  called  Bartholomew.  Peter  and  James 
the  brother  of  John,  and  two  other  disciples,  whose  names  are 
not  mentioned,  made  up  the  party.  Some  of  them — probably 
all  of  them — were  fishermen  by  calling,  and  to  supply  their 
necessities  (and  perhaps  those  of  other  disciples,  while  waiting 
for  their  Lord's  appearance)  they  resorted  to  their  former  avo- 
cation. They  entered  the  little  vessel  at  evening,  as  w^e  infer 
from  the  narrative,  verses  3  and  4.  At  day-dawn  the  Lord 
appeared  to  them,  standing  on  the  shore,  but  was  not  recog- 
nized at  first  by  any  of  the  party,  either  by  the  eye  or  the  ear, 
owing  to  the  dimness  of  the  light,  or  the  distance,  which  was 
not  less  than  a  hundred  yards,  or  eighteen  rods,  even  if  he 
stood  at  the  water's  edge.  His  inquiry — Have  ye  any  meat? 
was  understood  by  them  to  refer  to  fish,  as  is  plain  from  the 
sixth  verse.* 

The  haul  they  made  at  his  bidding,  being  very  extraordi- 
nary, if  not  miraculous,  was  the  means  of  his  recognition. 
Naturally  would  it  remind  them  of  a  similar  occurrence  near 
the  beginning  of  our  Lord's  ministry,  which  had  greatly  aston- 
ished them.  Luke  v.  4 — 11.  John  was  the  first  to  know  him. 
He  tells  his  thought  to  Peter,  perhaps  in  the  hearing  of  the 
others,  but  that  is  not  said.  Immediately  they  made  for  the 
land,  but  the  ardour  of  Peter  did  not  allow  him  to  wait  the  slow 
progress  of  the  boat.  Girding  himself  hastily  with  his  fisher's 
coat,f  he  plunged  into  the  water  and  swam  ashore,  leaving  his 
fellow-disciples  to  draw  in  the  net. 

*  Tlpo<7-<pctyiiv  from  Trpoa-^ayin  signifies  whatever  is  eaten  with  bread,  especially 
fish.  The  word  o-^npiov  (or  o-^avioy)  in  verse  ninth  is  translated  fish.  The  word 
ih^-ov  from  s^ai  coquo  signifies  ttav  to  m/pi  KsiToLff-Keuu<r/uiivov  »h  iittim.  See  Beza  ia 
loco. 

f  The  word  is  \7re/iuT»i,  which  signifies  commonly  an  overcoat  (to  l/uuriov  iTroMm. 
Suidas  Lex.     See  1  Sam.  xviii.  4  in  LXX.)     Some  suppose  that  it  means  shirt 


THE    SILENCE    OF   THE   DISCIPLES.  627 

We  are  not  told  whether  Peter  approached  the  Lord  before 
the  others  landed;  or  if  he  did,  what  words,  if  any,  passed 
between  them.  When  all  had  come  to  the  land,  they  saw  a  fire 
of  coals  and  a  fish  laid  thereon.  At  the  command  of  Jesus 
other  fish  were  brought,  and  their  morning  meal  prepared,  con- 
sisting of  bread  and  fish.  But  whence  the  bread?  Was  it 
miraculously  produced?  Although  it  is  not  expressly  afiirmed, 
we  regard  the  whole  preparation  of  the  repast  as  miraculous, 
and  designed  to  remind  them  of  their  first  call  to  discipleship, 
Luke  V.  4 — 7,  and  thus  to  add  a  proof  of  another  kind  con- 
firmatory of  the  proofs  already  given  of  the  identity  of  his 
person. 

Until  this  time  not  a  word  is  spoken  to  him  by  any  of  the 
apostles,  if  we  except  their  answer  to  his  inquiry  from  the 
shore,  before  they  knew  him.  The  majesty  of  his  person 
(Erasmus  suggests)  had  taken  from  them  their  usual  confi- 
dence. We  prefer,  however,  another  explanation.  Evidently 
they  regarded  him  as  they  would  have  regarded  an  angel  come 
from  the  invisible  world.  He  had  spoken  of  himself  as  being 
no  longer  with  them.  Luke  xxiv.  44.  A  feeling  of  awe  per- 
vaded their  minds,  rendering  them  incapable  of  familiar  inter- 
course with  him.  Hence,  as  we  suppose,  the  reason,  in  part, 
of  the  manner  in  which  he  approached  Cleopas  and  his  com- 
panion. Hence,  too,  the  disciples  are  represented  almost 
always  as  silent  when  conscious  of  his  presence. 

It  is  remarkable,  that  neither  Matthew  nor  Mark  records  a 
word  as  having  been  addressed  to  him  by  any  of  the  disciples 
after  his  resurrection.  Nor  does  Luke,  in  his  Gospel,  with  the 
exception  of  the  words  of  Cleopas.  Mary  Magdalen  could 
tranquilly  address  him,  while  she  supposed  him  to  be  a  gar- 
dener; but  after  she  knew  him  she  could  only  exclaim,  "Rab- 
boni."  Besides  what  Mary  said,  the  Evangelist  John  records 
only  the  confession  of  Thomas,  and  the  answers  of  Peter  to  the 
thrice  repeated  question,  "  Simon,  son  of  Jonas,  lovest  thou 
me?"  and  his  inquiry  concerning  John,  hereafter  to  be  no- 
ticed. 

At  the  meal  thus  miraculously  prepared,  not  a  word  was 
spoken  by  any  of  the  apostles,  though  they  received  the  food 
from  the  Lord's  hand,  verse  13.  "None  of  them,"  says  John, 
"  presumed  so  much  as  to  inquire  of  him,  who  he  was,  for  they 
knew  him,"  and  regarded  him  a  visitor  from  the  heavenly 
worlds. 

in  this  place,  because  in  the  next  verse  it  is  said,  Peter  was  naked,  which  is 
not  a  sufficient  reason.  In  his  eagerness  to  get  to  the  shore  Peter  wouhl  natu- 
rally be  content  to  put  on  his  outer  garment  only,  even  if  he  were  accustomed 
to  wear  others  underneath  it,  and  they  were  at  hand. 


530  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

As  if  he  had  said :  If  it  be  my  pleasure  to  continue  John  in 
my  service  on  earth  until  I  come  again  in  my  kingdom,  that 
concerns  thee  not.  Let  it  be  enough  for  thee  to  know  thy 
duty  and  thy  end. 

This  answer  gave  pccasion  to  a  false  report  among  the 
brethren,  which  John  thought  it  necessary  to  correct.  The 
seven  who  heard  the  words  of  Jesus,  repeated  them  perhaps 
incorrectly  to  others,  who  understood  them  as  a  positive  affirma- 
tion that  the  beloved  disciple  should  not  die ;  thus  bringing  his 
end  into  marked  contrast  with  the  predicted  end  of  Peter.  It 
was  a  misrepresentation  of  the  Saviour,  and  calculated  to  cast 
discredit  on  his  prophetical  character  at  the  death  of  John. 
'Fox  this  reason,  John  is  careful  to  record  the  very  words  of 
Jesus,  as  the  best  means  of  correcting  the  error;  and  this  was 
probably  one  of  the  reasons  for  adding  the  last  sixteen  verses 
to  this  chapter. 

John  xxi.  23.  "Then  went  this  saying  abroad  among  the 
brethren  that  that  disciple  should  not  die;  yet  Jesus  said  not 
unto  him  [Peter]  he  [John]  shall  not  die,  but  [he  said  simply] 
If  I  will  that  he  tarry  till  1  come,  what  is  that  to  thee?" 

Dr.  Adam  Clarke  says,  that  for  nearly  eighteen  centuries  the 
greatest  men  in  the  world  have  been  puzzled  with  this  passage. 
We  doubt  whether  the  difficulty  has  been  felt  so  long ;  and, 
indeed,  that  there  is  any  difficulty  in  the  passage  itself,  when 
considered  in  its  proper  connections.* 

Had  these  brethren  thought  that  the  coming  of  which  the 
Lord  spoke,  was  not  to  occur  until  after  the  lapse  of  many  cen- 
turies, it  is  not  to  be  supposed  they  could  have  put  such  an 
interpretation  upon  his  words.  But  assuming,  as  the  early 
Christians  did,  that  his  advent  in  his  kingdom  was  near,  and 
that  it  might  be  expected  at  latest,  within  a  period  not  greatly 
exceeding  an  ordinary  lifetime,  they  might  easily  convert  the 
hypothetical  expression,  "If  I  will  that  he  tarry  till  I  come," 
into  an  affirmation  of  the  purpose.  Had  they  believed,  as 
Dr.  Whitby  and  other  modern  divines  have  taught  the  Church, 
that  a  thousand  or  two  thousand  or  three  thousand  years,  at 
least,  must  intervene  between  the  Lord's  ascension  into  heaven 
and  his  final  coming,  they  would  have  found  it  difficult  to 
reconcile  the  assurance  of  so  long  a  life  with  the  favour,  in 
other  respects,  shown  to  tlie  beloved  disciple.  To  live  so  long 
in  the  body,  under  infirmities  ever  increasing  with  years,  and 

*  Frafmus  fctind  no  difficulty  in  explaining  the  passage  or  accounting  for 
the  mistake  of  the  brethren.  He  paraphrased  it  thus:  Ortus  est  jgitur  ex 
liijjus  occasione  seinionis,  inter  discipulos  rumor,  quod  discipulus  ille.  Jesu 
dilectus,  non  esset  moriturus  violent^  morte,  sed  peimansurus  in  vita,  douec 
rediret  Dominus,  &c.,  quod  onma  tvm  brcvi/uiurum  opinabaniur,  ^'c. 


THE   APPEARANCE   IN   GALILEE.  531 

to  be  absent  Ull  the  while  from  the  Lord,  would  not  liave  been 
esteemed  by  them  such  a  token  of  love  as  the  gracio.us  Saviour 
would  show  to  this  highly-favoured  disciple. 

We  observe  here  the  same  reserve  that  characterized  all  our 
Lord's  replies  concerning  the  times  and  seasons.  The  supposi- 
tion or  hypothesis  which  he  makes,  that  such  might  he  his  will, 
for  aught  that  Peter  could  know,  implied  that  his  advent  might 
occur  within  the  lifetime  of  some  of  that  generation.  The  idea 
thus  hypothetically  admitted  is  utterly  irreconcilable  with  the 
view  now  generally  entertained  of  a  thousand  years  to  precede 
the  second  coming  of  Christ. 

Matt,  xxviii.  16.  "[Then]  the  eleven  went  away  into  Gali- 
lee into  a  mountain  where  Jesus  had  appointed  them." 

The  time  of  this  gathering  is  not  mentioned.  We  know  not 
whether  it  occurred  before  or  after  the  Lord  appeared  to  the 
seven  disciples  at  the  sea  of  Tiberias.  If  we  may  assume  that 
it  was  on  this  occasion  the  Lord  appeared  to  more  than  five 
hundred  brethren  at  once,  we  may  infer  perhaps  from  1  Cor. 
XV.  5,  6,  that  it  occurred  not  long  after  his  first  appearance  to 
the  twelve.  Matthew,  it  is  true,  mentions  in  this  verse  only 
the  eleven  disciples,  but  from  verses  7th  and  10th  of  this  chap- 
ter, we  learn  that  all  the  brethren  and  disciples  were  commanded 
to  assemble  there  for  this  meeting.     See  Matt.  xxvi.  32.* 

Nor  does  the  Evangelist  inform  us  of  the  manner  of  his  ap- 
pearance, whether  his  approach  was  {more  humano)  natural  or 
miraculous,  nor  does  he  intimate  that  the  Lord  exhibited  at  that 
time,  as  he  had  done  on  former  occasions,  any  proofs  of  the 
identity  of  his  person.     But  whether  or  not, 

Matt,  xxviii.  17.  "When  they  [that  is  the  eleven  apostles 
and  the  other  disciples]  saw  him,  they  worshipped  him:  but 
some  doubted." 

The  apostles  and  some  others  of  the  disciples  had,  as  we  know, 
seen  him  before.  They  not  only  knew  him,  but  were  so  perfectly 
convinced  of  his  Divine  nature,  that  they  rendered  him  their 
religious  homage  and  worship.  But  some  of  those  present  (of 
OS  subaudi  rcou  TzapouTcou)  doubted  whether  he  was  really  Jesus. 
These,  it  is  probable,  were  disciples  to  whom  he  had  not  ap- 
peared before;  and  this  fact,  that  some  of  them  doubted,  justi- 

*  Upoii^ce  in  this  verse  seems  to  be  used  in  contrast  with  Jtita-KOfTrKr&xa-ir^  in 
the  preceding  verse;  as  if  the  Lord  had  said :  "I  the  Shepherd  am  about  to  be 
smitten  here  in  Jerusalem,  and  you  the  sheep  in  consequence  of  it  will  be 
scattered  abroad.  Yet  the  enemy  will  fail  of  his  object:  for  I  shall  rise  from 
the  dead,  and  after  I  am  risen,  scattered  though  you  be,  I  will  lead  you  forth, 
I  will  conduct  you  into  Galilee  and  there  gather  you  again."  The  words  of 
our  translation,  "I  will  go  before  you,"  in  the  sense  of  preceding  in  a  jour- 
ney, are  quite  inconsistent  with  the  manner  of  our  Lord's  being  after  hia 
resurrection. 


532  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

fies  the  inference  that  there  was  nothing  extraordinary  in  the 
manner  of  his  approach  or  appearance.* 

Matt,  xxviii.  18.  "And  Jesus  came  and  [npoasAdcou,  ap- 
proaching or  drawing  near]  spoke  unto  them,  saying,  All  power 
is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  earth." 

We  may  imagine  the  scene.  A  large  company  of  disciples 
assembled  at  or  near  a  mountain,  waiting  for  the  appearance  of 
Jesus.  As  soon  as  they  saw  him  they  prostrated  themselves 
(TTpoaexuurjaav)  before  him — that  being  the  manner  in  which 
adoration  was  commonly  rendered  in  the  East.  After  that  he 
comes  nearer  and  addresses  them  in  the  words  quoted,  which  we 
may  regard  as  responsive  to  their  worship :  as  if  he  had  said, 
*'I  accept  your  worship;  it  is  rightly  rendered  to  me:  for  all 
power  in  heaven  and  in  earth  is  committed  unto  me."  He  then 
gave  them  his  commission : 

Matt,  xxviii.  19.  "Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost: — teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  what- 
soever I  have  commanded  you,  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  always 
unto  the  end  of  the  world." 

Neither  Luke  nor  John  mentions  the  commission.  Mark 
does,  but  without  note  of  the  time  when  or  of  the  place  where 
it  was  given ;  he  adds,  however,  particulars  which  Matthew 
omits.  We  assume  that  both  Evangelists  had  in  view  one  and 
the  same  transaction :  for  we  cannot  suppose  the  Lord  formally 
and  solemnly  commissioned  the  apostles  for  the  same  object 
twice.  We  infer,  also,  that  the  commission  was  given  in 
Galilee,  on  this  occasion ;  for  the  Evangelist  records  nothing 
else  as  having  been  said  at  that  time.  How  long  it  was  before 
his  final  ascension  from  the  Mount  of  Olives,  we  have  no  means 
of  determining.  It  seems  probable,  however,  from  the  passage 
under  consideration,  and  the  context,  that  the  act  was  per- 
formed in   the   presence  of  many   disciples,    who   had   come 

*  Some  critics,  among  whom  is  Beza,  suppose  the  true  reading  is  ob  St  iSia-- 
Tuirav  instead  of  oi  Si  iJio-TAirav,  which  would  make  the  passage  signify  noi-  did  they 
doubt.  The  change  proposed  is  merely  from  u  into  /,  which  in  the  uncial  let- 
ters used  in  the  ancient  ]MSS.  would  be  easily  done  by  dropping  the  little  hook 
at  the  top  of  the  r  (Ol  or.)  But  the  most  ancient  MSS.  support  the  common 
reading,  and  the  proposed  change  rests  entirely  upon  conjecture.  Nor  is  it  at 
all  necessary  to  the  consistency  of  the  Evangelists  or  the  credibility  of  the  ac- 
counts they  have  left.  Why  should  it  be  thought  incredible  that  some  of  the 
many  disciples  who  met  on  that  occasion,  to  whom  he  then  appeared  for  the 
first  time,  1  Cor.  xv.  6,  had  their  doubts,  as  all  the  apostles  had,  before  they 
had  other  proofs  of  the  reality  of  the  Lord's  resurrection,  besides  his  mere 
appearance.  Luke  xxiv.  39 — 41 ;  John  xx.  20,  24,  2.5.  But  their  doubts  were 
all  ultimately  removed  by  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  and  the  miraculous  powers  conferred  on  the  apostles.  Had  it  not 
been  so,  Paul  would  not  have  referred  to  them,  1  Cor.  xv.  6,  as  living  wit- 
nesses of  the  fact. 


SCOPE    OF   THE   APOSTOLIC    COMMISSION.  533 

together  at  that  place  by  the  command  of  the  Lord,  to  be 
witnesses  as  well  of  his  resurrection,  as  of  this  act.  But  we 
learn  from  Luke  xxiv.  49  and  Acts  i.  4,  that  they  were  not  to 
enter  upon  their  work  until  they  should  be  endued  with  power 
by  the  Holy  Spirit.  According  to  Mark  the  commission  was 
thus  expressed  : 

Makk  XVI.  15,  16.  "And  he  said  unto  them:  Go  ye  into 
all  the  world  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature :  He  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved:  He  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  damned."* 

The  difference  between  the  commission  thus  worded,  and  its 
form  as  given  by  Matthew,  is  merely  verbal.  The  effect  of 
preaching  would  be  to  make  disciples,  (/jtadrjzeueip)  and  these 
disciples  they  were  commanded  to  baptize  upon  the  profession 
of  their  belief..  Acts  viii.  87.  The  scope  of  the  commission  is 
otherwise  expressed  in  Matt.  xxiv.  14:  "This  gospel  of  the 
kingdom  shall  be  preached  in  all  the  world  for  a  witness  unto 
all  nations."  But  observe,  it  was  not  promised,  for  their 
encouragement,  that  it  should  everywhere  be  received  with  the 
obedience  of  faith.  The  promise  was,  "he  that  believeth  shall 
be  saved ;"  and  even  this  promise  was  not  made  to  the  preach- 
ers, but  to  their  disciples. 

The  actual  result  of  their  labours,  under  this  commision,  was 
the  organization,  by  means  of  instruction  and  baptism,  of  visi- 
ble societies,  within  which,  as  within  the  ancient  Jewish  Church, 
the  Holy  Spirit  for  the  most  part  performed  and  still  performs 
his  work — sealing  it  with  Divine  power  and  efficacy.  Thus 
the  true  Church  is  formed,  of  which  the  Lord  himself  is  the 
architect.  Matt.  xvi.  17,  18,  against  which  the  gates  of  death 
shall  not  prevail.f 

*  The  last  eight  verses  of  Mark's  Gospel  are  remarkably  compendious.  The 
12th  verse,  we  have  seen,  relates  to  the  day  of  the  Lord's  resurrection.  It  is 
impossible  to  fix  the  time  of  the  13th  and  14th  verses  with  precision.  The 
four  verses  following,  it  has  been  suggested,  apply  to  the  gathering  of  the 
apostles  and  brethren  in  Galilee.  The  19th  verse  relates  to  the  Lord's  final 
ascension,  and  corresponds  with  Acts  i.  9.  The  last  verse  is  a  summary  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

According  to  this  distribution,  we  paraphrase  the  15th  verse  thus: 

"And  he  said  unto  them,  [afterwards,  when  he  met  the  eleven  in  Galilee 
with  five  hundred  other  brethren,  1  Cor.  xv.  6,]  Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and 
preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature,"  &c. 

f  The  Lord  represents  himself  as  the  builder  of  his  own  Church.  "  I  will 
build  my  Church."  The  rock  or  foundation  upon  which  he  declares  he  will 
build  it  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  revealing  to  men  the  mystery  of  his 
person,  as  "Christ  the  Son  of  the  living  God."  The  words  (st<  mwrn  t>i  ;t«t/w) 
"upon  this  rock,"  do  not  refer  to  Peter,  nor  yet  simply  to  Christ  himself,  but 
to  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  taught  Peter  the  mystery  of  the  person 
of  the  Chi-ist,  as  God  and  man.  Against  the  Church  which  is  thus  being 
formed,  the  gates  of  hell,  (a/xj)  that  is,  of  death,  shall  not  prevail.  Although 
the  members  of  it  have  been  passing  from  age  to  age  into  the  invisible  world, 


534  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTUEE. 

This  view  of  the  commission  does  not  detract  from  the 
dignity  and  importance  of  the  Christian  ministry.  It  was 
appointed  for  the  gathering  of  the  materials  out  of  which  the 
Lord  selects  such  as  he  pleases,  to  be  builded  into  his  spiritual 
house,  and  it  is  honour  enough  that  it  is  divinely  appointed  for 
any  purpose.  To  change  the  figure :  The  dignity  and  service 
to  which  he  called  the  apostles  was  to  be  fishers  of  men,  Luke 
V.  10;  Mark  i.  17;  Matt.  iv.  19;  and  the  result  of  their 
labours  he  set  forth  in  the  parable  of  the  net  cast  into  the  sea. 
Matt.  xiii.  47—49.     See  1  Cor.  iii.  12—15. 

It  results  also  from  what  has  been  said,  that  baptism  is  not 
a  saving  ordinance,  but  a  seal  of  discipleship.  In  Mark  xvi.  16, 
it  is  connected  with  belief.  "  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized 
shall  be  saved" — language  which  is  applicable  only  to  those 
capable  of  exercising  belief  in  the  gospel,  and  by  some  it  is 
restricted  to  such.  The  language  of  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  however, 
is  broad  enough  to  include  others.  The  infants  of  Israel,  at 
the  exodus  from  Egypt,  were  baptized  in  the  sea  and  the  cloud, 
as  well  as  the  adults,  1  Cor.  x.  1,  2,  and  the  baptism  of  John 
was  appointed  for  all  the  people,  Luke  iii.  21 ;  and  the  teaching 
and  baptism  the  Lord  appointed  were  for  all  nations,  and  for 
all  of  every  nation  capable  of  receiving  them.  This  command, 
the  apostles  would  naturally  interpret  by  these  national  exam- 
ples, and  if  there  were  a  doubt  on  the  question,  the  analogy  of 
circumcision  would  be  decisive.     Col.  ii.  11. 

One  use  of  the  baptism  of  infants  is  to  insure  their  disciple- 
ship— if  they  should  live  to  majority — by  uniting  them  to  the 
visible  Church,  thus  bringing  them  within  the  sphere  of  the 
ordinary  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  If  removed  by  death, 
before  moral  agency,  with  the  seal  of  the  covenant  upon  them, 
we  doubt  not  that  they  are  elect  according  to  the  foreknowledge 
of  God;  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  aggregated  to  the  Church 
of  the  first  born,  and  will  be  raised  in  glory  at  the  second 
coming  of  the  Lord.*    If  they  are  spared  to  the  age  of  maturity, 

(aJjtc)  yet  upon  the  completion  of  their  body,  the  gates  of  death  shall  yield 
them  up,  and  they  shall  appear  in  visible  glory  with  Christ  at  their  head. 
1  John  iii.  2.  Excommunication  may  cut  off  such  members  from  the  visible 
Church,  as  it  did  many  at  the  Reformation  from  Popery,  but  it  cannot  affect 
their  relations  to  the  invisible  Church,  nor  to  Christ  their  head. 

*  Those  who  deny  the  premillennial  advent  of  Christ  and  the  first,  or  sepa- 
rate and  earlier  resurrection  of  the  Elect  Church,  find  it  impossible  to  explain 
the  use  of  infant  baptism  in  the  case  of  those  who  die  in  infancy  before  they 
are  capable  of  moral  action ;  without  maintaining  that  all  unbaptized  infants 
dying  before  actual  sin  are  not  saved:  For  if  all  such,  whether  baptized  or 
unbaptized,  are  raised  at  the  same  time  to  the  same  glory,  what  benefit  does 
baptism  confer?  And  what  profit  was  circumcision  to  infants  in  Israel,  dying 
in  infancy  with  the  seal  of  the  covenant  upon  them,  if  the  uncircumcised  male 
infants  dying  in  infancy,  whether  Jew  or  Gentile,  are  indiscriminately  to  be 


THE  DISCIPLES  ENDOWED  WITH  MIRACULOUS  POWERS.     535 

their  baptism-,  without  faith,  will  be  of  no  avail.  "For  he  that 
believeth  not,"  being  capable  of  belief,  "shall  be  damned." 
Mark  xvi.  16. 

Mark  xvi.  17,  18.  "And  these  signs  shall  follow  them  that 
believe:  in  my  name  they  shall  cast  out  devils,  they  shall  speak 
with  new  tongues:  they  shall  take  up  serpents,  and  if  they 
drink  any  deadly  thing,  it  shall  not  hurt  them:  they  shall  lay 
their  hands  on  the  sick  and  they  shall  recover." 

Assuming,  as  we  do,  that  these  words  were  uttered  on  the 
occasion  of  our  Lord's  appearance  in  Galilee,  when  some  of  the 
disciples,  who  had  not  seen  him  before,  doubted,  they  furnished 
a  sure  means  of  convincing  them.  These  disciples  could  not 
doubt  that  they  saw  a  person,  or  that  they  heard  him  speak, 
nor  had  they  any  doubt  of  what  he  said.  They  doubted  whether 
he  who  appeared  and  spoke  to  them,  was  Jesus,  who  had  been 
crucified.  The  conferring  of  such  powers  upon  the  apostles — 
especially  the  gift  of  new  tongues  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  was 
a  sure  proof  not  only  of  his  resurrection  from  the  dead,  but  of 
his  Divine  nature.  A  proof  of  this  kind  was  quite  agreeable  to 
our  Lord's  method,  John  xiv.  29;  xiii.  19;  xvi.  4,  and  such  we 
suppose  was  One  reason  of  making  this  prediction  or  promise. 
The  Acts  of  the  apostles  show  how  it  was  fulfilled,  Acts  xvi. 
16 — 18;  viii.  7;  xix.  15;  ii.  4;  xxviii.  3;  v.  15,  16;  iii.  7; 
nor  can  we  reasonably  question  its  effect.  The  events  of  the 
day  of  Pentecost  were  marvellous  without  example,  and  proved 
beyond  cavil  the  living  energies  of  him  who  predicted  them. 

Besides  removing  the  doubts  of  those  disciples,  the  miraculous 
endowments  here  promised  and  soon  afterwards  conferred,  were 
of  the  utmost  importance,  as  we  shall  hereafter  see,  in  laying 
the  foundations  of  the  Church.  They  aroused  and  fixed  the 
attention  of  Jews  and  Gentiles.  Acts  ii.  7,  8;  viii.  6,  13; 
xiv.  11;  xiii.  12;  xxviii.  3 — 6.  They  attested  the  veracity 
and  authority  of  the  apostles.  As  they  were  exercised  in  the 
name  of  Jesus,  in  proof  of  his  resurrection  and  ascension,  they 
challenged  belief  in  those  facts  and  obedience  to  his  commands, 
and  thus  contributed  to  the  rapid  formation  of  the  visible 
Church.  Acts  ii.  41;  iv.  4,  32;  vi.  5,  7.  But  it  was  not  in 
their  nature  to  do  more.  Nor  was  their  long  continuance 
necessary.  For  churches  being  thus  formed,  and  being  made 
depositaries  of  the  truth,  became  witnessing  communities  capable 
of  attracting  the   observation   of  Jews   and   Gentiles,  and    of 

raised  at  the  same  time  to  the  same  degree  of  glory?  And  what  can  be  the 
meaning  of  God's  declaration  to  Abraham:  "The  uncircumcised  man-ciiild 
shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people:  He  hath  broken  my  covenant?"  It  cannot 
mean  he  shall  die  an  early  natural  death:  for  the  case  we  are  considering  is 
that  of  a  circumcised  man-child  dying  in  infancy. 


536  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

preaching  the  gospel  for  a  witness  to  the  people  among  whom 
they  were  planted. 

The  next  appearance  of  the  Lord  was  to  James,  as  we  learn 
from  1  Cor.  xv.  7 :  but  of  this  we  know  nothing  more  than  the 
fact.  The  time,  the  place,  the  circumstances,  are  nowhere 
recorded.  The  motive  of  it  was  probably  personal  to  that 
apostle.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  Lord's  appearance  to 
Peter;  and  for  that  reason  nothing  more  than  the  fact  in  either 
case  is  noted.  The  only  other  appearance  of  which  we  have  a 
particular  account,  is  mentioned  in  Acts  i.  4 — 9,  to  which  we 
now  proceed. 

The  appearances  already  spoken  of,  had  fully  convinced  the 
apostles  of  the  reality  of  the  resurrection  of  their  Lord  and 
Master.  The  proofs  they  had  of  it  were  many  and  infallible. 
Acts  i.  3.  They  were  as  fully  qualified  as  men  could  be,  to 
bear  testimony  to  the  fact;  and  this  final  appearance  was  not 
necessary,  nor  was  the  especial  design  of  it,  to  confirm  them  in 
the  belief  of  what  they  already  infallibly  knew.  But  it  was 
necessary  that  they  should  be  made  eye-witnesses  of  the  Lord's 
ascension.  Hitherto  his  departure  from  them  at  the  close  of 
each  interview,  had  been  as  mysterious  as  his  approach.  Luke 
xxiv.  3L*  But  now  the  apostles  were  assembled  to  witness 
his  ascension ;  a  fact  which  they  were  also  to  preach  and  testify 
to  as  eye-witnesses.  Acts  ii.  33,  34.  We  may  add,  by  these 
means  they  were  also  prepared  to  apprehend  more  vividly  the 
fulfilment  of  the  promise  the  Lord  made  them  the  night  before 
he  suffered:  "It  is  expedient  for  you  that  I  go  away;  for  if  I 
go  not  away,  the  Comforter  will  not  come  unto  you,  but  if  I 
depart  I  will  send  him  unto  you."  John  xvi.  7;  xv.  26.  They 
could  not  have  understood  at  the  time  the  manner  in  which  this 
promise  would  be  fulfilled.  John  xiii.  36;  xiv.  5;  xvi.  28.  The 
event  taught  them  that  it  was  through  his  death,  resurrection, 
and  ascension — three  mysterious  steps,  if  we  may  so  say — the 
first  two  of  which  had  been  fully  proved  to  them,  and  they  were 
now  to  be  made  eye-witnesses  of  the  third,  which  they  would 
naturally — we  may  say  inevitably — connect  with  the  visible 
descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  whose  mission  depended  on  the 
ascension  of  the  Lord  Jesus  to  the  Father. 

For  these  reasons,  in  addition  to  those  already  given,  we  do 
not  regard  the  account  of  the  ascension,  in  Acts  i.  4 — 9,  as 
only  a  more  particular  statement  or  narrative  of  the  ascension 
mentioned  in  Luke  xxiv.  51,  but  as  a  distinct  account  of  a  dif- 

*  What  Lube  says  of  the  Lord's  ascension  at  Bethany,  Luke  xxiv.  51,  he 
■wrote  by  inspiration.  He  does  not  mean  to  assert  in  that  place,  that  the 
apostles  at  tliat  time  saw  him  carried  up  into  heaven ;  for  they  did  not  see 
•whither  he  departed,  until  he  left  them  at  his  last  appearance. 


A    PARAPHRASE.  537 

ferent  ascension  introductory  to  the  relation  he  was  about  to 
make  of  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  next  chapter,  and 
intended  especially  to  show  the  manner  in  which  the  Lord  ful- 
filled the  promises  just  mentioned.  John  xiii.  33;  xiv.  2,  3; 
XV.  26;  xvi.  7,  28.  His  visible  ascension,  and  the  visible 
descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  were  a  demonstration  to  their 
senses  of  the  truth  and  fulfilment  of  his  words.  They  answered 
the  questions  and  doubts  of  Peter,  John  xiii.  36:  "Whither 
goest  thou?"  "Why  cannot  I  follow  thee  now?"  in  a  manner 
they  could  not  fail  to  comprehend.* 

Thus  much  premised,  we  come  to  the  passage,  the  scope  and 
general  meaning  of  which  may  be  learned  from  the  following 
paraphrase,  Acts  i.  1:  In  my  first  book,  Theophilus,  I  have 
related  [in  part]  what  Jesus  did  and  taught  [during  his  per- 
sonal ministry]  among  the  Jews,  Rom.  xv.  8,  bringing  that 
history  down,  verse  2,  to  [the  close  of  the]  day,  on  which  he 
[arose  from  the  dead  and]  ascended  [to  the  Father],  having 
[first]  given  his  commands,  through  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  [the 
apostles  he  had  chosen]  [to  be  his  witnesses],  verse  3.  To 
whom  he  alsof  appeared  again  from  heaven  at  several  times 
after  he  suffered,  during  [the  lengthened  period  of]  forty  days ; 
exhibiting  to  them  many  indubitable  proofs  [that  he  was  the 
same  Jesus  whom  they  had  seen  crucified].  At  these  appear- 
ings  he  spoke  to  them  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God  [which 
they  were  anxiously  expecting  and  waiting  for],  verse  4.  At 
length,  after  the  apostles  had  returned  from  Galilee,  whither 
they  went  with  other  disciples,  by  his  express  command  to  see 
him,  Matt,  xxviii.  10,  16 — 20;  having  assembled  them  together 
[upon  Mount  Olivet,  for  the  last  time],  he  strictly  commanded 
them  [[Tfj  '^(Of)i^s<Tdac),  not  to  leave  Jerusalem  again  [even  tem- 

*  This  view  proceeds  upon  the  assumption  that  each  of  the  treatises  of 
Luke  is  complete  in  itself — the  former  ending  with  the  day  of  the  Lord's  resur- 
rection— the  latter  commencing  with  the  day  of  the  Lord's  visible  ascension, 
which  he  introduced  with  a  brief  retrospect  of  the  forty  days  comprised  in 
twenty- five  words. 

f  The  force  of  the  particle  x.a.i  in  the  third  verse  is  to  intimate,  that  besides 
tlie  appearance  on  the  day  of  his  resurrection,  he  also  showed  himself  from 
time  to  time  to  the  apostles  during  forty  days  .afterwards,  for  their  more 
complete  and  perfect  assurance  of  the  fact,  and  for  other  gracious  purposes. 
Lideed  the  whole  passage  shows  plainly  enough,  that  the  Saviour  did  not 
constantly  dwell  bodily  on  the  earth  during  that  period,  concealing  himself 
for  the  most  part,  as  some  have  supposed,  in  unfrequented  places,  nor  keep 
lip  his  intercourse  with  them,  as  he  did  before,  according  to  the  supposition  of 
others;  but  that  at  each  time  he  appeared  to  them  from  heaven,  as  he  after- 
wards did  to  Paul,  under  such  circumstances,  and  with  such  demonstrations, 
as  proved  beyond  a  doubt  the  reality  of  his  resurrection,  although  he  had  not 
as  yet  given  them  visible  evidence  of  his  ascension.  What  article  of  faith 
requires  us  to  believe,  that  the  Lord  did  not  ascend  to  heaven  on  the  day  of 
his  resurrection,  nor  until  the  fortieth  day  after?     See  the  Apostles'  Creed. 

68 


538  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

porarily  for  any  purpose  whatever],  but  to  wait  [constantly  in 
that  city]  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  of  the  Father  [by 
the  visible  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  them],  which  [said 
he]  ye  heard  of  me  [both  before  I  suffered,  John  xv.  7,  and 
afterwards  when  I  first  appeared  to  you,  Luke  xxiv.  49]. 

[To  which  he  added  these  words  of  explanation,  in  order  to 
teach  them  something  of  its  exalted  and  glorious  nature,] 
verse  5  :  John  baptized  [all  the  people,  Luke  iv.  20]  with 
water,  [without  imparting  any  transfoi-ming  or  saving  effect 
upon  them,  as  the  event  showed,]  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days  hence.     Matt.  iii.  2.] 

[This  allusion  to  John  the  Baptist,  whose  name,  baptism,  and 
ministry  were  associated  in  their  minds,  inseparably  with  the 
expected  kingdom,  excited  their  curiosity.  They  surmised  that 
as  John's  baptism  had  respect  to  the  kingdom  of  Messiah,  so 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (which  he  gave  them  to  under- 
stand was  the  meaning  of  the  promise  of  the  Father,  to  which 
he  had  just  referred,)  also  had  respect  to  the  same  kingdom, 
and  the  functions  they  were  immediately,  upon  receiving  this 
baptism  of  the  Spirit,  to  exercise  therein:  and  being  fully 
convinced  that  he  was  truly  the  promised  Messiah,  and  had  the 
power  to  establish  his  kingdom  over  Israel  whenever  he  pleased, 
they  put  to  him  [directly]  this  question,  verse  6 :  Lord,  wilt 
thou  at  this  time  restore  the  kingdom  unto  Israel  ?  [and  is  it 
to  qualify  us  for  the  parts  we  are  to  perform  therein,  that  we 
are  to  receive  this  new  baptism?]  To  which  question  [without 
disclaiming  the  power  the  apostles  ascribed  to  him,  or  the  pur- 
pose at  some  time  to  restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel]  he  replied 
thus: 

Verse  7. — It  is  not  for  you  to  know  times  or  seasons  which 
the  Father  hath,  [not  committed  to  the  Son  to  reveal,  Mark 
xiii.  32,]  but  on  the  contrary,  hath  purposely  put  in  his  own 
power,  (yet  whatever  may  be  the  Divine  purpose  in  respect 
to  this  event)  verse  8,  ye  shall  receive  power — the  Holy 
Ghost  coming  upon  you,  [whereby]  ye  shall  be  qualified 
to  become  witnesses  unto  me  [not  only]  in  Jerusalem  and 
in  all  Judea,  [the  limits  of  your  former  commission.  Matt. 
X.  5,  6,  but  in]  Samaria,  and  to  the  uttermost  part  of  the 
earth.* 

[Having    thus    answered   their    question    by    denying    the 

*  As  if  he  hail  said :  the  Divine  purpose  in  respect  to  the  time  for  the 
restoration  of  the  kingdom  to  Israel  will  not  prevent  the  fulfilment  of  the 
Father's  promise  to  you.  However  remote  or  near  that  event  may  be,  you 
shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  order  to  qualify  you  for  the  actual 
mission  and  service  in  which  you  are  to  be  employed,  and  that,  too,  not  many 
days  hence. 


RETURN   FROM    MOUNT    OLIVET    TO   JERUSALEM.  539 

information  fhey  asked  for,  verse  7,  and  having  also  removed 
a  doubt,  verse  8,  which  might  have  arisen  in  their  minds,  if  he 
had  merely  answered  their  question,  he  closed  his  earthly 
intercourse  with  them  in  the  body,  and,  verse  10,  while  they 
beheld  he  was  taken  up,  and  a  cloud  received  him  out  of  their' 
sight.] 

[But  as  he  had  now  appeared  to  them  at  several  times  and 
departed  from  them,  without  a  promise  at  any  time  to  appear 
to  them  again,  except  to  the  women  on  the  morning  of  his 
resurrection.  Matt,  xxviii.  10 ;  and  inasmuch  as  this  appear- 
ance was  especially  designed  to  make  them  witnesses  of  his 
ascension,  lest  they  should  indulge  the  hope  that  he  would 
continue  still  to  appear  to  them  visibly  as  before,  he  com- 
manded two  angels  to  appear  at  their  side,  as  he  left  them, 
and  explain  the  meaning  of  what  they  saw,  who  addressed  them 
thus:]  verse  11,  Ye  men  of  Galilee,  why  are  ye  gazing  upward 
to  heaven  ?  [The  sight  astonishes  you.  You  do  not  understand 
it.  We  are  sent  to  tell  you  why  you  were  made  to  behold  it. 
It  is  both  a  proof  and  an  example  of  what  you  are  slow  to 
comprehend.].  This  same  Jesus  [w^hom  that  cloud  has  now  con- 
cealed from  your  view,  having  made  you  witnesses  of  his  death 
and  resurrection,  now  makes  you  Avitnesses  of  his  ascension 
bodily  into  heaven.  Remember  how  he  said  unto  you,  "  I  came 
forth  from  the  Father  and  am  come  into  the  world.  Again  I 
leave  the  world  and  go  to  the  Father."  John  xvi.  28.  Since 
his  resurrection  hitherto,  he  has  appeared  to  you  and  disap- 
peared at  unawares ;  you  know  not  how.  Think  not  that  he 
will  thus  appear  unto  you  visibly  again.  His  next  appearance 
will  be  at  the  times  of  the  restitution  of  all  things,  at  the  end 
of  this  age,  when  he]  will  so  come  [from  heaven]  in  like  man- 
ner as  ye  have  seen  him  go  into  heaven,  verse  12.  Then  they 
returned  into  Jerusalem  from  the  Mount  called  Olivet,  Avhich  is 
from  Jerusalem  a  Sabbath-day's  journey.*] 

*  The  leading  object  of  this  paraphrase  is  to  ascertain,  as  far  as  possible 
from  the  circumstances  and  associations  of  the  moment,  tlie  current  of  thought 
in  the  mind  of  the  writer  as  well  as  in  the  ininds  of  the  Saviour  and  the  apos- 
tles, and  in  this  way  to  account  for  the  transitions  which  otherwise  seem  to  be 
abrupt.  Why,  for  example,  should  those  who  had  come  together  {ol  fxti 
<rvvi>.(liVTi;  verse  6,)  ask  this  question  concerning  the  restoration  of  the  kingdom 
to  Israel,  unless  it  was  suggested  by  the  mention  of  John  the  Baptist,  the 
advent  or  kingdom-preacher?  Why  should  the  Ldrd,  after  he  had  fully 
answered  their  question,  add,  verse  8,  what  the  question  did  not  call  for,  (the 
addition  being  little  more  than  a  repetition  of  what  he  had  already  said  in 
verse  4,)  unless  it  was  to  assure  them  that  the  fulfilment  of  the  Father's  pro- 
mise was  not  dependent  upon  the  restoration  of  the  kingdom  to  Israel,  as  they 
seemed  to  suppose  ?  And  what  connection  had  the  words  of  the  angels  with 
the  sight  they  explained,  or  with  th,'  apostles'  views  or  expectations,  unless 
it  be  that  suggested  in  the  paraphrase?  That  there  is  a  consecutive  chain  of 
meaning  from  verse  4  to  verse  11,  we  cannot  doubt.  It  may  not  be  that  sug- 
gested, but  if  not,  will  the  reader  endeavour  to  discover  it? 


540  NOTES    ON  SCRIPTUKE. 

To  this  paraphrase  we  now  add  a  few  observations  on  par- 
ticular passages. 

Acts  i.  3.  "  Speaking  [of  the]  things  concerning  the  king- 
dom of  God." 

What  the  Lord  taught  his  apostles  on  this  subject  has  not 
been  recorded.  It  is  plain,  however,  from  the  question  they 
put  to  him,  verse  6,  that  they  did  not  understand  him  to  say 
anything  inconsistent  with  the  prophecies  respecting  the  king- 
dom promised  to  Israel,  or  its  restoration  at  that  time.  The 
kingdom  of  God,  of  which  he  spoke,  they  understood  to  be  the 
kingdom  which  John  the  Baptist  preached,  the  coming  of  which 
he  had  represented  by  various  parables,  Matt,  xiii.,  all  of  which 
implied  some  delay  in  its  coming.  See  notes  on  Matt.  iii.  2,  p. 
210.  We  may  infer  also  from  Acts  x. ;  xv.  7 — 17,  that  the 
apostles  did  not  learn  from  him  at  that  time  that  the  Gentiles 
would  be  sharers  therein,  Matt.  xxii.  1 — 9,  although  he  had 
already  assured  them  that  repentance  and  remission  of  sins 
should  be  preached  in  his  name  among  all  nations.  Luke  xxiv. 
47.  Even  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit  received  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost  did  not  extend  to  this  mystery,  because  a 
special  command  was  necessary.  Acts  x.  19,  20,  to  determine 
Peter  to  go  to  Cornelius.  Indeed  the  kingdom  of  God,  to  a 
great  extent,  is  still  a  mystery,  and  will  remain  so,  more  or 
less,  until  it  shall  be  revealed  at  the  appearing  of  Jesus  Christ. 
1  Tim.  iv.  1 ;  1  Cor.  ii.  9 ;  Rev.  x.  7 ;  1  John  iii.  2;  Dan.  vii. 
13,  14. 

Acts  i.  4.  "And  being  assembled  together  with  them,"  &c. 
Rather  say,  "and  having  convened  them." 

This  meeting  was  brought  about  by  a  special  act  of  the 
Saviour's  providence,  as  Avere  all  the  others;*  and  this  con- 
sideration, if  well  founded,  enables  us  to  decide  in  favour  of 
the  common  reading.  The  sense  of  [(TL)iJa'j?,i^o/isuo^)  "  dwelling 
or  lodging  with  them"  is  not  agreeable  to  the  fact,  as  we  have 
seen,  and  the  sense  of  "eating  together  with  them"  seems  to 
imply  that  the  apostles  were  not  yet  fully  convinced  of  the 
reality  of  his  resurrection:  for  it  w^as  only  as  a  proof  of  that 
fact  that  the  Lord  partook  of  food  in  their  presence  at  all.  It 
is  plain,  however,  that  after  his  appearance  to  Thomas,  John 
XX.  26,  the  apostles,  without  exception,  were  perfectly  con- 
vinced of  this  truth.  Besides,  the  sense  we  have  suggested,  is 
most  agreeable  to  the  Divine  nature  and  dignity  of  the  Saviour, 

*  See  note  on  Matt,  xxviii.  16.  Indeed  it  is  remarkable,  that  from  their 
first  call  to  the  apostleship,  until  his  final  departure  from  them,  he  exercised 
a  special  care  and  control  over  them.  Luke  xxii.  35 ;  Matt.  x.  9,  30,  com- 
pared with  John  xvii.  12  ;  xviii.  8,  9. 


John's  baptism  and  ministry.  541 

and  for  that"  reason  most  probably,  if  not  certainly,  the  sense 
of  the  inspired  writer. 

Acts  i.  5.  "For  John  truly  baptized  with  water,  but  ye 
shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days  hence." 
Or  thus:  John  baptized  [all  the  people]  with  water,  [to  prepare 
them  for  the  kingdom,  the  advent  of  which  he  preached,]  but  I 
will  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  Matt.  iii.  11 ;  Mark  i.  8. 

It  appears  to  be  a  part  of  the  Divine  plan  to  introduce  every 
new  dispensation  with  a  preparatory  baptism  of  those  who  were 
or  are  to  enjoy  it.  The  dispensation  of  law  was  preceded  by 
baptism  in  the  cloud  and  sea.  1  Cor.  x.  1,  2.  See  1  Peter 
iii.  20,  21;  2  Peter  ii.  5;  iii.  6,  7.  That  baptism  continued, 
without  any  other  baptism  of  the  whole  people,  until  John  Avas 
sent  to  preach  a  new  dispensation  which  implied  his  authority 
to  baptize.  John  i.  25.  Hence  our  Lord  uses  the  words  "bap- 
tism of  John"  in  a  sense  which  includes  his  function  of  teaching 
and  preaching  the  kingdom.  Matt.  xxi.  25.  It  was  this  asso- 
ciation of  the  rite  with  the  preaching  of  the  impending  advent 
of  Messiah,  and  of  both  with  the  person  of  John  as  the  ap- 
pointed preacher,  taken  in  connection  with  the  contrast  the 
Lord  stated  between  John  as  a  baptizer  with  water,  and  himself 
as  the  baptizer  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  suggested  to  the  apos- 
tles the  inquiry  in  the  next  verse. 

John's  ministry  preceded  but  a  little,  the  appearance  of  Mes- 
siah. In  fact,  Jesus  appeared  and  began  to  preach,  as  soon  as 
John's  public  ministry  was  ended.     Matt.  iv.  12. 

It  was,  therefore,  very  natural  for  the  apostles,  without  set- 
ting down  anything  to  the  account  of  Jewish  prejudices,  to 
suppose  that  their  ministry,  aided  by  the  promised  power,  would, 
like  John's,  be  brief,  and  issue  immediately  in  the  outward 
establishment  of  the  kingdom  they  so  much  desired.  The  in- 
spiration of  the  Holy  Spirit  by  degrees  corrected  and  enlarged 
their  views.  Acts  iii.  19—21 ;  xv.  13—17,  by  unfolding  to  them, 
as  occasion  required,  more  and  more  of  the  Divine  purposes. 
But  with  the  amount  of  knowledge  they  then  had,  the  inquiry 
sprung  from  the  habitual  association  in  their  minds  of  baptism 
with  the  kingdom:  from  their  hopes  of  its  near  approach, 
founded  upon  the  preaching  of  John,  and  the  promised  aid  of 
Divine  power.* 

*  As  John's  baptism  had  respect  to  the  kingdom  he  preached  to  the  Jews,  so 
the  baptism  the  apostles  were  to  administer  has  respect  to  the  kingdom  they 
•were  to  preach  to  all  nations.  As  the  purpose  of  John's  ministry  and  baptism 
terminated  with  the  rejection  and  death  of  Christ— that  is  with  the  withilrawal 
of  the  kingdom  from  the  Jews  as  a  nation,  Matt.  xxi.  43— so  the  purpose  of 
the  ministry  and  baptism  committed  to  the  apostles  and  their  successors  will 
terminate  with  the  resurrection  of  the  elect  Church  and  the  second  coming  of 
Christ  in  that  same  kingdom  which  the  Jews  rejected.     Both  baptisms  had 


542  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

Verses  4,  5.  ^  These  verses,  it  may  be  presumed,  comprise 
all  the  Saviour  intended  to  say  in  the  first  instance  to  the  apos- 
tles on  this  occasion.  All  he  said  afterwards,  verses  7  and  8, 
•was  drawn  out  by  their  question;  and  would  not  have  been 
said,  it  may  be  presumed,  if  that  question  had  not  been  put. 
Hence,  it  may  be  inferred  that  the  object  of  gathering  them  at 
this  time  was  not  to  give  thern  further  instructions,  nor  yet  to 
confirm  them  in  their  belief  of  the  fact  of  his  resurrection,  of 
■which  they  were  already  fully  convinced,  but  to  make  them  wit- 
nesses of  his  final  ascension.  Verses  4  and  5,  it  will  be  observed, 
are  but  a  repetition  of  what  he  had  said  before,  John  xx.  19—23; 
Luke  xxiv.  49,  except  that  he  more  strictly  enjoined  them  not 
to  leave  Jerusalem,  lest  being  absent  at  the  moment  of  the 
bestowment  of  the  promised  gift,  they  should  fail  of  the  bless- 
ing. It  is  not  improbable  that  for  the  same  reason  they  abode 
from  that  time  together,  as  we  are  told  they  did  in  verses  13 
and  14. 

Acts  i.  6.  "  When  they  therefore  w^ere  come  together,  they 
asked  of  him,"  &c. 

The  connection  of  this  verse  with  the  preceding  is  obscured 
by  the  translation.  The  meaning  is,  that  the  persons  who  had 
thus  been  brought  together,  that  is,  the  apostles  and  perhaps 
some  other  disciples,  hearing  this  reference  to  John  and  his 
baptism,  and  the  promise  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
therefore  asked  him,  &c.  Who  composed  the  company  is  not 
quite  clear.  They  are  not  designated  apostles.  The  angels 
called  them  "men  of  Galilee,"  verse  11,  and  it  is  apparent 
from  the  12th  and  13th  verses,  that  the  eleven  apostles  were  of 
the  number :  but  it  is  not  improbable  that  other  disciples  were 
present,  especially  those  pious  women,  see  verse  14,  who  were 
last  at  the  cross  and  first  at  the  sepulchre,  on  the  morning  of  the 
Lord's  resurrection.  And  if  it  was  a  part  of  the  apostles'  office  to 
bear  witness  to  the  Lord's  ascension,  it  is  probable,  if  not  quite 
certain,  that  Joseph  called  Barsabas,  and  Matthias  were  of  the 
number,  verses  21 — 26.      We  perceive  no  reason  why  others, 

respect  to  the  coming  of  one  and  the  same  kingdom,  and  both  to  an  elect  people, 
but  not  the  same  people.  The  subjects  of  John's  baptism  were  that  generation 
of  Jews  to  whom  he  was  sent,  but  the  subjects  of  Christian  baptism  are  pro- 
fessed believers  of  all  nations.  The  water  which  John  applied  was  but  an  em- 
blem of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  eleraert  was  continued,  but  it  is  still  only  an  em- 
blem of  that  same  Divine  energy  which  the  Lord,  as  the  architect  of  his  Church, 
Matt.  xvi.  18,  keeps  in  his  own  power.  The  apostles  and  the  ministry  which, 
instrumentally,  they  established,  apply  the  element  to  multitudes,  as  .John  did, 
while  the  Lord  baptizes  (with  the  Holy  Spirit)  those  only  whom  the  Father  has 
given  him.  John  xvii.  2,  9,  12,  20.  John's  baptism,  like  that  of  Moses,  was 
an  ineffectual  rite.  The  event  proved  it.  Such,  also,  is  the  baptism  committed 
to  the  apostles  and  the  Church  when  unattended  with  the  Holy  Spirit's  renew- 
ing power.     Yet  it  is  a  divinely  appointed  ordinance  of  inestimable  value. 


MISCONCEPTION   OF   THE  APOSTLES.  543 

as  well  as  the  apostles,  should  not  be  permitted  to  witness  this 
wonderful  event.  The  angels  might  especially  address  the 
apostles  as  they  did,  although  others,  Galilean  men  and  women, 
were  present. 

Acts  I.  6.  "Lord,  wilt  thou  at  this  time  restore  the  hing- 
dom  to  Israeli' 

It  is  not  probable  that  the  apostles  had  an  enlarged  con- 
ception of  the  kingdom  about  which  they  inquired.  See  notes 
on  Luke  xxiv.  25,  26.  Yet  they  were  not  mistaken  in  assuming 
that  a  kingdom  had  been  promised  to  their  people.  Isa.  i.  26; 
Zech.  ix.  9;  Micah  iv. ;  Amos  ix.  11;  Hos.  iii.  4,  5.  The 
idea  of  theocracy  was  familiar  to  them,  but  it  was  a  theocracy 
distinct  from  and  paramount  to  the  government  of  their  kings 
and  earthly  rulers.  The  blending  or  consolidation  of  the 
theocracy  with  the  earthly  throne  and  kingdom  of  David, 
at  the  accession  of  Messiah,  was  a  mystery  they  did  not  under- 
stand. This  is  indeed  still  the  great  undeveloped  mystery  of 
the  kingdom.  The  astonishing  events  they  had  witnessed  had 
fully  convinced  them  of  a  part  of  this  great  mystery,  the  union, 
namely,  of  the  Divine  with  the  human  nature,  in  the  person  of 
their  Master;  but  this  did  not  explain  to  them  the  profound  and 
far-reaching  mystery  of  the  throne  and  the  kingdom  of  David, 
nor  had  they  any  proper  conception  of  the  means  by  which,  or 
of  the  dignity  and  glory  to  which,  it  was  his  purpose  to  exalt 
them.  It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  their  conceptions  of  it 
were  influenced  by,  if  not  formed  upon  the  most  prosperous 
period  in  their  national  history.  But  their  misconception  of  it, 
whatever  it  may  have  been,  and  their  low  views,  are  to  be 
ascribed  to  ignorance,  not  to  national  prejudice.  The  glories 
of  the  kingdom  as  well  as  the  times  of  it,  are  still  unrevealed 
secrets,  deeply  hidden  in  the  mind  of  God,  which  his  providence 
only  will  disclose.  1  Tim.  vi.  14 — 18,  See  the  Jewish 
Chronicle  for  April,  1849,  vol.  iii.  pp.  289,  291. 

Acts  i.  7.  "It  is  not  for  you  to  know  the  times  or  the 
seasons  which  the  Father  has  put  in  his  own  power." 

This  clause  is  better  rendered  without  the  article.  The 
meaning  is.  It  is  not  for  you  to  know  any  of  the  times  or 
seasons  connected  in  the  Divine  mind  with  the  purposes  of 
redemption;  for  these  the  Father  hath  hidden  under  his 
Almighty  power. 

The  restoration  of  the  kingdom  to  Israel  is  one  of  those 
purposes.  With  it  are  connected  others  of  inconceivable  mag- 
nitude and  glory — the  completion  of  the  elect  church,  or  the 
church  of  the  first  born,  the  body  of  Christ — their  resurrection 
to  glory — the  second  coming  of  Christ — the  destruction  of  the 
man  of  sin — the  binding  of  Satan — the  removal  of  the  curse, 


544  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

and  the  restitution  of  all  things  contained  in  God's  covenant 
with  Abraham. 

Bengel,  in  loco,  remarks,  that  the  emphasis  is  on  you,  as  if 
others  might  know  what  they  might  not.* 

This  may  be  true  in  a  qualified  sense:  for  the  Lord  had 
already  given  them,  and  through  them  the  church,  providential 
signs  of  his  coming,  to  be  watched  for.  Luke  xxi.  25 — 36; 
Mark  xiii.  24—37;  Matt.  xxiv.  29 — 37.  But  this  question 
was  definite.  It  called  for  precise  information:  Lord,  wilt 
thou,  at  this  time,"  &c.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  our  Lord 
always  refused  to  answer  such  inquiries.  See  Matt.  xxiv. 
3,  42;  XXV.  13;  Mark  xiii.  4.  32,  33;  Luke  xii.  36—46; 
xxi.  7,  34.  It  is  plain  from  the  Epistles,  that  the  inspiration 
of  the  apostles  afterwards,  did  not  extend  to  this  subject. 
1  Thess.  V.  2;  2  Thess.  ii.  3—8;  2  Pet.  iii.  10;  Rev.  iii.  3; 
xvi.  15. 

Acts  i.  9.  "And  ....  while  they  beheld  he  was  taken 
up,  and  a  cloud  received  him  out  of  their  sight." 

The  sacred  writer  describes  according  to  the  appearance. 
The  angels  he  calls  men,  because  they  appeared  in  the  form  of 
men;  and  that  which  concealed  the  ascending  Saviour  from 
view,  he  calls  a  cloud,  for  such  it  appeared  to  be.  We  should 
err,  however,  if  we  conceived  of  it  as  a  natural  cloud  of  vapour, 
through  which  the  Lord  passed.  At  his  transfiguration  a  cloud 
appeared,  out  of  which  a  heavenly  voice  issued.  Luke  ix.  34,  35; 
Mark  ix.  7 ;  Matt.  xvii.  5 ;  2  Pet.  i.  17.  See  also,  Exod.  xiv.  19 ; 
xvi.  10;  xxiv.  15,  16;  xxxiv.  5;  xl.  38;  1  Kings  viii.  10;  Isa. 
iv.  5,  which  we  are  accustomed  to  regard  as  supernatural,  and 
so  we  regard  this.  The  ascension  was  an  act  of  Divine  power, 
and  why  may  not  all  its  attendant  circumstances  be  ascribed  to 
the  same  cause? 

Acts  i.  12.  "Then  returned  they  [from  the  place  where 
they  Avitnessed  the  ascension]  unto  Jerusalem  [namely]  from 
the  Mount  called  Olivet,  which  is  from  Jerusalem  a  Sabbath- 
day's  journey." 

Upon  the  hypothesis  that  our  Lord  first  ascended  to  heaven 
on  the  fortieth  day  after  his  resurrection,  it  is  difficult  to 
reconcile  this  verse  with  Luke  xxiv.  50,  51.  See  notes  on  those 
verses.  Some  have  imagined  there  were  two  places  called 
Bethany ;  but  if  this  were  so,  some  of  the  Evangelists  unques- 
tionably would  have  mentioned  the  fact.  See  Matt.  xxi.  17; 
xxvi.  6;  Mark  xi.  1,  11,  12;  xiv.  3;  Luke  xix.  29;  xxiv.  50; 

*  Non  dicit  non  est  vestrum  sed  non  ve.itrum  est  ...  .  Non  dicit  non  est  juris 
et  officii  vextn  quoerere.  sed  ait  non  vestrum  est  nosse.  Revelatio  oeconomiffi 
divime  liabet  suos  gradus. 


THE   PLACE   OF  THE   LOBD'S  ASCENSION.  545 

John  xl.  1;  "xii.  1.  Reland  rejects  the  supposition.  All  the 
itineraries,  according  to  that  author,  show  but  one  Bethany, 
and  that  at  the  foot  of  the  Mount  of  Olives,  on  the  east. 
Others  suppose  that  tradition  only  fixes  the  summit  of  the 
Mount  as  the  place  of  ascension ;  but  such  a  tradition  naturally, 
not  to  say  inevitably,  would  arise  from  this  verse,  and  should 
therefore  be  regarded  as  the  early  and  contemporaneous  expo- 
sition of  the  text,  and  for  that  reason  more  likely  to  be  accord- 
ing to  the  truth  than  any  different  one  which  modern  criticism 
can  suggest.*  The  difficulty  disappears,  if  we  admit  several 
ascensions — a  supposition  quite  consonant  with  the  Divine 
power  and  majesty  of  the  Saviour.  See  notes  on  John  xx.  17. 
And  why  should  the  sacred  writer  mention  Mount  Olivet  at 
all,  and  especially  the  distance  of  a  particular  summit  or  part 
of  it  from  the  city,  if  he  had  it  in  his  mind  to  signify  that  they 
returned  from  Bethany?  This  would  be  to  go  out  of  his  way 
in  order  to  make  a  geographical  note  not  called  for  by  his 
subject;  and  at  the  same  time,  an  omission  of  the  chief  thing 
he  intended  to  say.  The  language  he  employed  in  his  Gospel, 
xxiv.  50,  52,  would  have  expressed  his  meaning  clearly  and 
fully.  It  is  true,  if  they  returned  from  Bethany  by  the  nearest 
way,  they  returned  along  that  part  of  the  Mount  which  was 
opposite  to  the  city,  and  when  they  reached  the  summit  they 
were  a  Sabbath-day's  journey  from  the  city.  But  this  he  does 
not  say.  He  says  simply  they  returned  from  the  Mount  of 
Olives,  without  mention  of  any  other  place,  and  from  the 
necessity  of  the  case,  we  may  say,  they  returned  from  the  place 
of  ascension.  Hence  the  inference  seems  necessary,  that  the 
place  from  which  he  finally  ascended  was  that  part  of  the 
Mount  of  Olives  which  was  a  Sabbath-day's  journey,  about 
2,000  cubits,  or  one  thousand  yards  from  the  city.  No  doubt 
would  have  arisen  on  this  question  were  it  not  for  Luke  xxiv. 
50,  51,  which  applies,  as  we  think  it  has  been  shown,  to  a 
different  ascension.  It  may  be  added,  that  Zechariah,  in  pro- 
phesying of  the  Lord's  return.  Acts  i.  11,  designates  the  Mount 
of  Olives  as  the  place  where  his  feet  shall  stand,  xiv.  4,  and 
Ezekiel,  xi.  23,  denotes  that  mountain  as  the  place  upon  which 
the  glory  of  the  Lord  rested. f 

*  Bernard  Lamy  resolves  the  difficulty  in  this  way,  which  he  considers  easy 
and  satisfactory:  "Non  in  ipsa  Bethania  sed  in  via,  qua  Dominus  se  recipere 
solebat  in  Bethaniam,  ascendit  in  caelum;  scilicet,  eduxerat  discipulos  foras 
extra  Hierosolyma,  quasi  more  suo  vellet  ire  in  Bethaniam.  In  itinere  autem 
antequam  hue  perveniret  assumptus  est."  But  the  words  of  Luke,  xxiv.  50, 
are:  He  led  them  out  (s^  ik  Buflawav)  as  far  as  to  Bethany,  which  do  not  admit 
such  an  interpretation. 

f  Josephus  mentions  the  Mount  of  Olives  in  Antiquities,  books  vii.  8 ;  ix.  11 ; 
XX.  6;  Jewish   War  vi.  3.     It  is  referred  to  under  difl'erent  de.^iguatious  in 

69 


546  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

Acts  i.  13,  14.  "And  when  they  were  come  in" — after  they 
had  come  into  the  city — "they  went  up  into  [the]  upper  room — 
where  abode  Peter,  and  James,  and  John,  and  Andrew,  Philip, 
and  Thomas,  Bartholomew  and  Matthew,  James  the  son  of  Al- 
pheus,  and  Simon  Zelotes,  and  Judas  the  brother  of  James. 
These  all  continued  with  one  accord  in  prayer  and  supplication, 
with  the  women  and  Mary  the  mother  of  Jesus,  and  with  his 
brethren." 

From  the  place  of  the  ascension,  these  persons  returned  im- 
mediately to  the  upper  apartment  the  apostles  had,  probably, 
previously  occupied.  The  definiteness  of  the  language  justifies 
the  supposition  that  some  particular  places  were  in  the  mind  of 
the  writer.  Setting  out  from  Mount  Olivet,  they  returned,  by 
a  short  walk,  immediately  to  the  city,  and  entering  it,  they  pro- 
ceeded together  to  the  upper  apartment,  in  the  occupation  and 
under  the  control  of  the  apostles.  Upon  entering  it,  they  en- 
gaged in  prayer,  and  continued  to  do  so  daily,  in  expectation  of 
the  fulfilment  of  the  Father's  promise.  Other  disciples  also 
took  part  in  these  daily  exercises ;  among  whom  were  certain 
women,  of  whom  only  one  is  mentioned  by  name — Mary  the 
mother  of  Jesus,  and  his  nearest  kinsmen. 

Nothing  compels  us  to  believe  that  all  these  disciples  dwelt 
togeljher  under  the  same  roof,  but  only  the  apostles,  who  were 
probably  influenced  to  do  so  by  the  supposed  connection  between 
the  Saviour's  command  to  keep  within  the  walls  of  the  city,  and 
his  promise  to  baptize  them  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  Nor  need 
we  suppose  they  did  not  leave  the  apartment,  or  visit  the 
temple  daily :  for  this  would  contradict  Luke  xxiv.  52.  The 
command  was  merely  not  to  depart  from  the  city,  ano  "hpoaoX- 
upcop  p-fj  y^coptC,s.odae.  It  was  enough  that  they  should  be  found 
together  in  one  place,  and  so  they  were  daily  at  the  appointed 
hours  for  prayer.  May  we  not  believe  that  at  such  a  meeting 
the  Holy  Spirit  descended  upon  them?  Acts  ii.  1;  see  iv.  31. 
But  to  whom  did  they  address  their  prayers?  The  events  of 
which  they  had  been  eye-witnesses,  left  no  doubt  in  their  minds 
of  the  Divine  nature  of  their  Master.  They  knew  him  to  be 
omniscient,  as  well  as  all-powerful,  and  to  him  they  prayed. 
This  is  apparent  from  verse  24,  which  contains  the  only  notice 

1  Kings  xi.  7;  Mark  xiii.  3.  The  Jews  sometimes  called  it  the  Mount  of  Unc- 
tion, and  they  have  a  tradition  that  the  Shekina,  see  Buxtorf  s  Chald.  Rabb. 
and  Talmud.  Lex.  ad  voc,  dwelt  three  years  and  a  half  on  that  mountain  to 
see  whether  the  people  would  return  to  God — calling  out  to  them,  "Return  to 
me,  my  sons,  and  I  will  return  to  you" — but  as  they  remained  impenitent  the 
Shekina  returned  to  his  own  place.  The  mountain  has  tliree  summits :  the 
northern  is  the  highest,  and  is  distant  two  stadia  or  furlongs  from  that  opposite 
to  the  city.  The  southern  summit  is  called  the  Mount  of  Offence.  The  inter- 
mediate is  that  of  the  Ascension.     See  Reland's  Palestine. 


IIEASONS  FOR  THE  EVENTS  OF  THE  DAY  OF  PENTECOST.      547 

•we  have  of  t'he  prayers  they  offered  during  this  short  interval. 
Their  faith  in  this  essential  fact,  then,  preceded  their  inspiration 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  this  removes  one  of  the  chief  argu- 
ments of  those  who  would  fritter  doAvn  the  confession  of  Thomas 
into  a  mere  exclamation.     John  xx.  28. 

It  is  a  notable  circumstance  that  Mary  the  mother  of  our 
Lord  is  not  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  after  this  place, 
and  that  the  other  female  disciples,  whose  names  so  frequently 
occur  in  the  Gospels,  are  here  alluded  to  only  in  general  terms, 
and  not  afterwards — a  confirmatory  proof  of  what  is  sufficiently 
apparent  from  other  places,  1  Tim.  ii.  12;  1  Cor.  xi.,  that  the 
active  public  ministry  of  the  gospel  was  not  committed  unto 
them.  This  may  well  be  allowed,  without  detracting  in  the 
least  from  their  importance  and  eminent  usefulness  in  the 
Church. 

We  have  now  reviewed  all  the  passages  respecting  our  Lord's 
appearances  to  his  apostles  and  disciples  after  his  resurrection. 
To  them  these  appearances  established  the  fact,  beyond  the 
possibility  of  doubt,  and  thus  qualified  them  to  be  witnesses  of 
it  to  the  world.  But  would  the  world  receive  the  fact  on  their 
assurance,  whatever  proofs  they  might  give  of  their  sincerity? 
Would  it  be  reasonable  to  expect  it?  More  than  this:  would 
it  be  consistent  with  the  equity  of  the  Divine  government  to 
demand  belief  of  facts  so  wonderful,  upon  mere  human  testi- 
mony? Even  the  Lord  himself  appealed  to  his  works  in  con- 
firmation of  his  words.  John  v.  36;  x.  25;  xv.  24.  Admitting 
the  sincerity  of  the  apostles,  they  were  ignorant  and  unlearned 
men,  and  it  would  be  much  safer  to  believe  they  were  deceived, 
than  to  receive  upon  their  assurance  as  true,  events  so  incredi- 
ble. So  the  world  would  reason.  Add  to  this :  the  matters  to 
which  the  apostles  were  to  testify  concerned  the  religious  faith 
of  the  people,  of  which  they  were  tenacious  beyond  example. 
How  could  they  who  had  rejected  and  put  to  death  the  Master, 
notwithstanding  his  miracles,  be  expected  to  receive,  with  the 
obedience  of  faith,  the  unconfirmed  testimony  of  his  unlettered 
servants?  His  death  was  public,  and  extremely  ignominious. 
None  but  his  disciples  ever  saw  him  after  his  resurrection.  The 
popular  belief  was,  he  had  not  risen  at  all.  The  rulers  and 
priests  asserted  that  his  disciples  had  stolen  and  concealed  his 
dead  body,  to  give  support  to  imposture.  See  notes  on  Matt, 
xxviii.  13.  Under  such  circumstances,  their  verbal  testimony 
would  be  regarded  as  the  testimony  of  disappointed  men,  and 
unworthy  of  belief  even  by  the  vulgar.  Why,  it  would  be  in- 
quired, if  he  really  rose  from  the  dead,  did  he  not  publicly  ap- 
pear, as  he  did  before,  in  the  temple  and  before  the  assemblies 
of  the  people,  that  all  might  see  him  and  judge  for  themselves 


548  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 

of  the  reality  of  the  fact?  These  and  such  questions  suggest, 
as  we  suppose,  some  of  the  reasons  of  the  events  of  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  and  of  the  extraordinary  powers  which  were  then 
conferred  upon  the  apostles.  Formally  stated:  The  leading 
design  of  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at  that  time  bestowed 
upon  the  apostles,  appears  to  have  been,  (1.)  To  establish  and 
confirm  the  truth  of  their  testimony,  as  witnesses  of  the  resur- 
rection and  ascension  of  Jesus.  (2.)  To  prove  to  the  apostles 
themselves,  as  well  as  to  others,  that  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  John 
xvi.  13,  the  Comforter,  xvi.  7,  had  really  come,  in  fulfilment  of 
the  Saviour's  promise,  and  dwelt  in  them  and  acted  by  them. 

No  doubt  these  gifts  were  subservient  to  other  uses,  some  of 
which  have  been  already  briefly  alluded  to.  See  note  on  Mark 
xvi.  17,  18.  They  excited  and  fixed  the  attention  of  all  of 
every  rank,  nation,  and  religion.  They  enabled  the  apostles 
to  control  and  authoritatively  to  govern  their  numerous  con- 
verts, and  organize  them  into  churches,  and  appoint  over  them 
rulers  and  teachers.  They  also  attested  the  truth  and  author- 
ity of  their  writings.  But  these  are  topics  which  do  not  come 
within  the  scope  of  these  notes.  Incidentally  some  of  them 
may  be  noticed.  The  first  two,  however,  belong  to  the  order 
of  proofs  under  consideration,  and  in  discussing  them  it  will  be 
necessary  to  examine  with  particular  attention  the  miracles  the 
apostles  wrought,  and  the  arguments  they  founded  thereon  to 
prove  the  Messiahship  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  consequently  his 
resurrection  from  the  dead,  his  ascension  to  heaven,  and  his 
future  coming  in  his  kingdom. 


CHAPTER    XV. 


CHRIST  S    GLORIFICATION. 


The  Day  of  Pentecost. — Peter's  discourse. — Peter's  argument. — The  miracles 
that  were  wrought. — Tlie  elect  church. — The  miracle  of  healing. — The  times 
of  refreshing. — The  dill'erent  dispensations. — The  restitution  of  all  things. 

Acts  ii. — The  glorification  of  the  crucified  body  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  was  an  event  fraught  with  the  profoundest  instruction  to 
angels,  as  well  as  to  men.  Eph.  i.  20,  21;  iii.  10;  Col.  i.  18; 
Heb.  i.  6;  1  Pet.  i.  12.  It  was  his  installation  at  the  right 
hand  of  power.  Acts  ii.  33.  The  sending  down  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  dependent  on  this  event,  John  vii.  39,  which,  as  we 
conceive,  occurred  simultaneously  with  his  glorification.  Then 
he  was  completely  and  for  ever  enlarged  from  the  restraints  he 
subjected  himself  to,  by  his  incarnation,  and  then  it  was  he 


Christ's  glorification.  549 

resumed  the  glory  he  had  with  the  Father  before  the  worhl  was. 
Col.  ii.  6 — 11 ;  John  xvii.  5;  Heb.  v.  5.  His  body  was  then  bap- 
tized with  the  baptism  he  had  desired,  Luke  xii.  4*J,  50,  and 
the  members  of  his  mystical  body  on  earth — adopting  the  inspired 
imagery  of  the  apostle,  1  Cor.  vi.  15;  Rom.  xii.  5;  1  Cor.  xii. 
27;  Eph.  i.  22,  23;  iv.  12,  13;  Col.  i.  24;  John  xvii.  21—23 
— at  the  same  moment  shared,  though  in  much  smaller 
measure,  in  the  Divine  unction.  Ps.  cxxxiii.  2. 

It  w^as  to  his  glorification  then,  as  we  suppose,  the  Lord 
referred,  by  the  words  in  Luke  xii.  50.  As  this  interpretation 
of  the  passage  is  at  variance  with  the  common  application  of  it, 
the  reader  may  desire  to  know  the  reasons  on  which  it  is 
founded.  It  is  also  important  to  explain  them,  in  order  to  cast  a 
clearer  light  upon  what  may  be  called  the  great  epoch  in  the 
world  of  redemption.  The  words  are,  "  I  have  a  baptism  to  be 
baptized  with,  and  (ttco^  aupe^ofjta:)  how  am  I  straitened  till  it 
be  [tzhadrj)  accomplished."  It  is  commonly  supposed  that  our 
Lord  referred  by  this  expression  exclusively  to  his  sufferings 
on  the  cross,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  they  were  at  that 
moment  vividly  presented  to  his  mind.  They  lay  in  the 
appointed  way  to  the  enlargement  he  desired,  consequent  upon 
the  exaltation  of  his  human  person  to  glory  and  power,  and 
the  resumption  of  the  glory  he  had  laid  aside.  The  word 
{ziXzad^rj)  translated  "  accomplished,"  is  of  cognate  origin  with 
the  word  zshioco  which  occurs  several  times  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  and  is  commonly  rendered  "made  perfect."  ii.  10; 
V.  9;  vii.  19—28;  ix.  9;  x.  1,  14;  xi.  40;  xii.  23.  This 
word  (rs/le^ow,)  when  applied  to  the  Lord  Jesus  uniformly  de- 
notes his  exaltation  to  glory.  See  Scldeusner  s  Lex.  Nov.  Test. 
ad  voc.  Tsketoco,  and  Stuart  on  Heb.  ii.  10,  and  the  other  places 
cited.  So  here*:  this  word  [rehodrj)  being  joined  with 
{j^o.7iTca[xa)  baptism,  also  denotes  the  glorification  of  his  human 
person.  Until  it,  that  is  his  glorification,  should  be  accom- 
plished he  could  not,  consistently  with  the  Divine  purpose,  put 

*  The  joining  of  a  word  of  the  same  origin,  and  so  similar  in  signification, 
see  Scapula  ad  voc.  Ttxof,  with  the  word  bajitiivi  (ji^Tmcr/u-/.)  is  in  itself  an  argu- 
ment of  some  weight.  If  we  add,  that  in  Hebrews  ii.  10;  v.  8,  9,  the  word 
(TiKiiiU))  understood  in  the  sense  of  (/lorificntion,  is  used  in  connection  with  the 
appointed  means  through  which  (/w  ■rcahity.i.'vmyi)  his  state  of  giorificatidu  was 
attained,  the  argument  is  considerably  enforced  :  ami  finally,  if  we  duly  con- 
sider that  there  was  a  logical  necessity  for  the  interchange  of  the  verbs  arising 
from  the  nature  of  the  different  subjects  of  which  they  are  predicated,  and 
also  the  evident  parallelism  which  exists  between  this  passage  and  tliose  last 
cited  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  we  shall  find  sufficient  reasons  to  admit 
the  interpretation  suggested.  We  may  add  that  the  baptism  of  the  believer, 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  the  beginning  of  a  work  or  process  which  ends  in  his 
glorification,  and  in  this  sense  his  baptism  is  not  accomplished  Qterfected)  until 
his  glorification.     See  Rom.  viii.  29,  30. 


650  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTUKE. 

forth  his  almighty  energies.  See  Matt.  xxvi.  53,  54;  Deut. 
xviii.  18;  John  v.  19—30;  viii.  28;  ix.  4;  xii.  49;  xiv.  10. 
He  could  not  send  down  the  Holy  Spirit  he  had  promised. 
John  vii.  39 ;  xvi.  7.  Till  then,  he  would  retain  the  form  of  a 
servant,  Philip,  ii.  7,  and  consequently  be  straitened  or  con- 
fined to  such  acts  of  power  and  grace  as  had  been  appointed  to 
him  to  perform  in  that  subject  condition.* 

This  interpretation  discloses  the  latent  thought  which  con- 
nects this  verse,  Luke  xii.  50,  with  the  preceding  (49th)  verse, 
and  the  three  following:  "  I  am  come  to  send  fire  on  the  earth, 
and  what  will  I — (desire  I  more) — if  it  be  already  kindled?" 
The  language  is  highly  figurative.  It  expresses  intense  desire, 
and  what  so  desirable  to  him  in  his  human  character,  as  his 
glorification  ?  Heb.  xii.  2.  Under  the"  emblem  of  fire  he 
alluded  to  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at  the  Pentecost, 
which  was  then  first  kindled,  and  from  that  day  forward  was 
sent  broad-cast  into  the  earth.  The  strife  between  the  powers 
of  the  Saviour,  which  he  then  began  to  put  forth  through  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  the  powers  of  darkness,  was  then  com- 
menced. Acts  ii.  13,  which  was  to  result  in  the  separation  of 
the  children  of  the  kingdom  from  fleshly  alliances,  Matt.  x. 
34 — 39 ;  Luke  xii.  51 — 53,  and  prepare  them  as  an  elect 
people  to  receive  God's  king  of  Zion  at  his  second  coming.f 

*  The  word  (o-uv6;^;//cu)  straitened,  is  very  energetic.  This  we  perceive 
when  we  reflect  who  spoke  it.  It  signifies  to  be  shut  up  or  kept  in  constraint, 
as  in  a  narrow  passage — to  be  bound,  held  fast,  shackled.  See  notes  on  Luke 
xxiv.  38 — 40.  The  LXX.  employ  it  in  some  places,  to  translate  '-i;^^  {atsar, 
see  Trommius. )  It  is  worthy  of  remark  also,  that  the  Jews  apply  the  word 
(nilZS)  atsereth,  in  the  sense  of  restraining  or  shutting  up,  to  the  seven 
weeks  between  the  Passover  and  the  Pentecost;  probably  because  the  joy 
of  the  harvest  was  at  that  time  restrained.  See  Brown's  Antiquities  of  the  Jews, 
vol.  i.  p.  480.  Also  Numb.  xvi.  48;  Job  xxix.  9;  1  Chron.  xxi.  22;"  Heb.  text 
and  Gussetius  Com.  Ling.  Heb.  and  Schindler  Lex.  Pentaglot.  ad  voc.  for 
the  use  of  this  word.  It  is  not  improbable  our  Lord  had  respect  to  this 
customary  use  of  the  word  in  the  Jewish  Calendar,  and  the  enlargement  he 
should  receive  at  the  close  of  it,  by  the  baptism  of  his  body  by  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

f  It  may  be  supposed  that  Matt.  xx.  22,  23,  and  Mark  x.  39,  are  incon- 
sistent with  this  interpretation,  but  on  the  contrary,  if  rightly  explained,  they 
confirm  it.  In  these  verses,  the  idea  of  deep  affliction  is  expressed  by  the 
words,  "  drink  of  my  cup;"  an  expression  which  allows,  if  it  does  not  require, 
us  to  understand  the  phrase,  "  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  with  which  I  am 
baptized,"  of  glorification.  The  sense,  as  we  conceive,  is  expressed  by  the 
following  paraphrase:  "Ye  shall  indeed  drink  of  my  cup"  of  sorrows.  Matt, 
xxvi.  39;  "and  be  baptized  with  my  baptism,"  by  which  at  first  your  souls 
shall  be  renewed  and  sanctified,  and-  your  bodies  shall  ultimately  be  glori- 
fied, and  made  like  my  own  glorious  body.  Philip,  iii.  21 ;  1  John  iii.  2  ; 
Rom.  viii.  29.  A  glory  and  a  blessedness  so  great  should  satisfy  you.  "  But 
to  sit  on  my  right  hand  and  my  left,"  enjoying  the  first  places  in  my  king- 


CHRIST'S   GLORIFICATION.  551 

The  common  belief  is  that  the  Lord  was  glorified  immediately 
on  his  ascension,  and  it  is  founded  perhaps  upon  the  supposed 
incongruity,  or  unfitness,  of  his  appearing  in  heaven  in  his 
unglorified  human  form.  Hence,  perhaps,  one  reason  for  post- 
poning his  first  ascension  till  the  fortieth  day  after  his  resur- 
rection. We  have,  however,  endeavoured  to  show  that  the  Lord 
ascended  on  the  morning  of  his  resurrection,  and  afterwards 
repeatedly  during  this  period.  See  notes  on  John  xx.  17; 
Luke  xxiv.  50,  51;  and  Horsley,  Ser7nons  on  the  Resurrection. 
And  why  should  it  be  thought  incredible  that  the  man  Clirist 
Jesus  should  thus  appear  in  the  presence  of  the  Father,  as  the 
first  Adam  might  have  done,  had  he  continued  sinless  ?  Can 
we  be  sure  that  there  was  no  purpose  in  the  plan  of  redemption 
which  he  was  required  to  accomplish  within  the  veil,  that  is,  in 
the  upper  sanctuary,  before  his  glorification?  Why  was  not 
the  Holy  Spirit  given  immediately  upon  his  last  (visible)  ascen- 
sion? Was  this  gift  bestowed  in  answer  to  his  intercession 
after  his  ascension,  first  upon  himself,  as  the  head  and  first- 
born of  the  new  creation,  without  measure — in  all  the  fulness 
of  the  Divine  power ;  and  at  the  same  time  in  such  measure  as 
needful  upon  his  members  ?  See  Heb.  vii.  25.  We  can  neither 
affirm  nor  deny.     These  things  are  not  revealed.* 

In  the  absence,  then,  of  any  more  explicit  declaration  of 
Scripture,  the  foregoing  observations  render  it  at  least  probable 
that  the  glorification  of  the  Lord  Jesus  was  the  great  event  of 

dom,  "is  not  mine  to  give  except  to  those  for  whom  it  has  been  prepared 
of  my  Father." 

The  common  interpretation  of  this  passage  makes  the  Saviour's  answer 
tautological.  For  the  idea  of  suffering  is  tivice  expressed,  thereby  divesting 
it  of  any  promise  of  good  whatever.  The  interpretation  suggested  finds  in 
it  an  esceediugly  great  and  glorious  promise,  in  which  all  his  faithful  apos- 
tles had  an  equal  share.  Besides,  neither  James  nor  John  suffered  death  by 
crucifixion.  James  was  put  to  death  by  the  sword.  Acts  xii.  2.  John  died,  it 
is  supposed,  a  natural  death,  at  a  very  advanced  age,  after  having  suffered 
severe  persecutions.  We  may  regard  these  events  as  the  fulfilment  of  the 
prediction  that  they  should  "drink  of  his  cup."  The  Saviour  certainly  did 
not  intend  to  say  that  they  should  suffer  death  on  the  cross.  Again,  how 
consistent  the  interpretation  above  suggested  is  with  the  gracious  char- 
acter of  the  Saviour.  He  assured  those  ignorant  and  ambitious,  though  loving 
and  beloved  disciples,  of  glory  and  happiness  inconceivably  great,  which 
they  should  enjoy  in  common  with  their  fellow-disciples,  yet  not  the  pre- 
eminence in  his  kingdom— the  thing  which  they  asked.  See  Matt,  xviii. 
2,  3;  Luke  xxii.  24 — 30;  John  xiii.  13 — 17.  The  next  verse,  Matt.  xx.  24; 
Mark  x.  41,  shows  how  little  the  other  ten  entered  into  the  spirit  of  the 
Lord's  answer. 

*  It  is  worthy  of  observation  that  our  Lord  was  transfigured  on  the  holy 
mount  ^vhile  he  was  in  the  act  of  prayer,  Luke  ix.  29;  and  in  his  final  inter- 
cession he  prayed  to  the  Father  for  glorification.  John  xvii.  6.  See  Luke 
iii.  21.  The  glorification  of  his  manhood,  and  of  his  elect  people,  consti- 
tuting together  one  body,  were  alike  the  purchase  of  his  death  and  inter- 
cession. 


552  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 

the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on 
the  apostles  was  an  outward  manifestation  of  greater  things 
then  done  in  heaven.  By  considering  these  events  as  simulta- 
neous, we  enter  more  fully  into  the  doctrine  of  the  oneness  of 
Christ,  (the  head)  with  his  members  (his  body)  and  are  enabled 
to  conceive  more  adequately  of  the  manner  and  glory  of  its 
origin.     These  observations  premised,  we  proceed  to 

Acts  ii.  1.  "And  when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully 
come,  they  were  all  with  one  accord  in  one  place." 

The  feast  of  Pentecost  (r^^c  TTevTSxaarr^i;')  occurred  on  the 
fiftieth  day  after  the  Passover.  The  Jews  observed  it  in  com- 
memoration of  the  giving  of  the  law,  on  the  fiftieth  day  after 
the  exodus  of  Israel  from  Egypt,  when  that  people  put  them- 
selves under  the  leadership  of  Moses,  and  the  patriarchal 
economy,  as  to  them,  ceased.  They  call  it,  also  the  feast  of 
weeks,  because  it  fell  on  the  last  day  of  the  seventh  week  after 
the  day  of  the  Passover.  They  call  it  also  the  feast  of  first 
fruits,  because  on  that  day  they  ofi"ered  to  God  the  first  fruits 
of  the  wheat  harvest.  As  this  feast  was  instituted  immediately 
after  the  giving  of  the  law,  it  has  always  been  regarded  as  a 
public  attestation  of  that  great  event.  Exod.  xxxiv.  22 ;  Levit. 
xxiii.  15,  16.  We  observe,  also,  that  as  the  patriarchal  dispen- 
sation ceased  fifty  days  before  Israel  came  into  new  covenant 
relations  with  Jehovah  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Sinai,  so  the 
Levitical  economy  ceased  fifty  days  before  the  economy  of  the 
Spirit  was  inaugurated.  The  meaning  of  these  short  pauses  in 
the  march  of  the  Divine  administrations,  the  Scriptures  do  not 
explain.  We  doubt  not  that  both  are  typical  in  their  nature, 
the  former  of  the  latter,  and  the  latter  of  something  yet 
future ;  although,  by  many  interpreters,  the  latter  is  regarded 
merely  as  the  period  allotted  for  proving  to  the  apostles  and 
disciples  the  reality  of  the  Lord's  resurrection.  Besides,  this 
view  of  it  does  not  extend  to  the  whole  of  this  period,  but 
leaves  a  portion  of  it — the  interval  between  the  Lord's  visible 
ascension  and  the  day  of  Pentecost — unexplained. 

How  many  of  the  disciples  were  gathered  together,  and  at 
what  place  within  the  city,  we  are  not  informed.  Beza  inclines 
to  follow  the  reading  of  two  ancient  MSS.,  which  limits  the 
number  to  the  apostles,  who  alone,  at  the  first  outpouring, 
received  the  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  and  to  whom  it  had 
been  especially  promised.  John  xvi.  7 — 13.  The  place,  it  is 
probable,  was  (not  the  temple,  else  probably  it  would  have 
been  mentioned,  but)  some  private  dwelling,  where  they  had 
been  accustomed  to  assemble. 

Acts  ii.  2,  3,  4.  "  And  suddenly  there  came  a  sound  from 
heaven  as  ot  a  rushing  mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all  the  house 


THE   DAY   OF    PENTECOST.  553 

where  tliey  were  sitting :  and  there  appeared  unto  them  cloven 
tongues  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them :  And 
they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  began  to  speak 
with  other  tongues,  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance." 

This  was  the  outward  visible  fulfilment  of  the  Saviour's  pro- 
mise at  the  last  interview  with  the  Twelve  before  he  suffered. 
See  notes  on  Mark  xvi.  17,  18.  As  before  suggested,  it  was 
the  effect  of  an  act  performed  in  the  Upper  Sanctuary,  within 
the  veil,  far  more  glorious  in  heaven  than  on  earth — a  greater 
wonder  to  the  heavenly  hosts  than  to  the  inhabitants  of  Jeru- 
salem. These  demonstrations  of  the  Divine  power  and  presence 
could  not  fail  to  remove  every  doubt,  if  any  remained,  upon  the 
minds  of  those  disciples,  who  either  received  or  witnessed  the 
bestowment  of  this  gift.  They  were  designed,  also,  as  a  sign  to 
others,  and  had  the  effect  of  arresting  and  fixing  their  attention, 
as  we  learn  from  the  following  verses.  See  1  Cor.  xiv.  22. 
The  power  to  speak  in  other  tongues,  never  learned  or  heard, 
suddenly  imparted  to  illiterate  men,  was  a  great  miracle,  alto- 
gether new  in  its  kind,  and  utterly  inexplicable,  except  by  the 
inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  verse  4, 

Upon  the  apostles  themselves,  the  first  effect  of  the  Spirit 
was  no  doubt  regenerative.  Luke  xxii.  32;  Matt,  xviii.  3. 
Hitherto  the  Saviour  had  kept  them  by  his  special  providence 
and  care.  John  xvii.  12;  xviii.  8,  9;  Luke  xxii.  35.  Now  he 
handed  them  over,  so  to  speak,  to  the  power  and  guidance  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  John  xvi.  13,  who  commenced  his  work  by 
renewing  their  souls,  and  transforming  them  into  eminently 
holy,  although  not  perfect  men.  He  inspired  them  with  new 
courage,  enlightened  their  minds  and  enlarged  their  views,  by 
removing  the  veil  which  hitherto  had  bounded  their  mental 
vision.  A  suffering  Messiah  was  no  longer  a  stumbling-block, 
but  the  only  Messiah  who  could  fulfil  the  predictions  of  the 
prophets.  These  effects  we  shall  see  exemplified  as  we  proceed. 
But  before  we  leave  this  passage,  we  should  add  that  this  first 
outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  the  fulfilment,  in  part,  of 
the  promise  recorded  in  Mark  xvi.  17,  18.  If  we  compare  this 
passage  with  John  xiv.  16,  and  1  Cor.  xii.  4 — 11,  we  learn 
that  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  believers  would  be 
made  manifest  in  two  ways,  (1)  by  his  converting  power,  and 
(2)  by  miraculous  gifts,  or  powers;  such  as  those  of  speaking 
new  tongues,  healing  the  sick,  casting  out  demons,  and  other 
diversities  of  gifts,  or  of  operations  of  the  same  gift.  All  these 
operations,  the  regenerative  as  much  as  the  rest,  are  in  truth 
equally  miraculous,  being  the  effect  of  Divine  power  exerted 
according  to  the  Divine  will,  in  a  manner  removed  from  human 
power  and  scrutiny.  Yet,  there  is  this  difference  between 
70 


654  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

them :  in  his  converting  power,  the  Holy  Spirit  was  promised 
to  abide  in  the  Church  for  ev.er;  that  is,  until  the  last  born  of 
God's  elect  shall  be  born  again,  and  the  Lord  himself  shall 
return  to  gather  the  whole  body  unto  himself.  But  the  out- 
wardly manifested  miraculous  endowments  of  the  Spirit  were 
designed  especially  to  qualify  the  apostles  and  their  fellow- 
labourers  for  laying  the  foundations  of  the  Church,  and  rapidly 
extending  it  throughout  the  world.  These,  as  before  remarked, 
see  notes  on  Mark  xvi,  17,  18,  were  not  designed,  as  some  have 
supposed,  to  be  perpetual  in  the  Church;  and  the  withdrawal 
or  cessation  of  those  powers  is  not  an  evidence  of  the  want  of 
faith  in  those  who  are  truly  Christ's,  but  a  part  of  the  plan  of 
the  dispensation  under  which  we  live.  See  notes  on  John  xx.  29. 

The  effect  which  the  visible  descent  of  the  Spirit  produced  on 
the  devout  Jews  at  Jerusalem,  is  narrated  in  verses  7 — 12.  The 
varieties  of  people,  of  their  origin,  and  of  the  languages  they 
spoke,  give  us  a  better  idea  of  the  confluence  of  strangers  at 
that  city,  especially  at  the  season  of  festivals,  than  we  can 
obtain  from  any  other  passage.  These  persons,  being  Jews  by 
descent  or  proselytes,  but  foreigners  by  birth,  could  appreciate 
the  greatness  of  the  sign,  while  others,  probably  natives  of 
Judea,  not  understanding  the  languages  spoken,  regarded  them 
as  jargon,  and  the  effect  of  drunkenness,  verse  13. 

Acts  ii.  14 — 36.  But  Peter  standing  up  with  the  eleven, 
repelled  the  calumny.  He  declared  that  this  wonderful  display 
was  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  predicted  by  the  prophet  Joel, 
chap.  ii.  28 — 32,  whom  he  quoted  at  length,  and  then  proceeded 
to  apply  it  as  a  proof  of  the  Divine  mission  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
and  of  his  resurrection  from  the  dead,  and,  verse  38,  exaltation 
to  glory.  He  asserted  that  it  was  his  act:  "He  hath  shed  forth 
this  which  ye  now  see  and  hear."  In  the  course  of  his  address 
he  quotes  Ps.  xvi.  8,  in  proof  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  to 
which  he  adds  the  personal  testimony  of  the  apostles,  who  had 
received  this  wonderful  gift  of  speaking  foreign  tongues.  Such 
is  the  summary  of  the  ap'ostle's  argument.  We  add  a  few 
observations  upon  some  of  the  particulars. 

(1.)  He  uses  the  event  he  was  speaking  of,  as  a  proof  of  the 
resurrection.  "  This  Jesus  hath  God  raised  up,  whereof  we  all 
are  witnesses,"  verse  32,  .and  he  confirms  the  testimony  by  this 
obvious  consideration ;  that  the  wonderful  gift  they  had  thus 
suddenly  received,  could  be  bestowed  only  by  God,  leaving  it  to 
be  inferred  by  his  hearers,  that  God  would  not  bestow  it  to  con- 
firm their  testimony  if  it  were  false.  The  argument  is  not 
only  logical  but  conclusive.  It  is  impossible  that  God  should 
sanction  or  attest  a  falsehood  by  a  miraculous  display  of  his 
power,  such  as  they  witnessed.     It  wull  be  instructive  to  notice 


Peter's  discourse.  555 

particularly  the  manner  in  which  he  confirms  the  personal  testi- 
mony of  the  apostles  by  the  Scriptures,  verses  25 — 31.  "For 
David  speaking  concerning  him  (Jesus  of  Nazareth)  said,  I 
foresaw  the  Lord  always  before  my  face ;  for  he  is  on  my  right 
hand  that  I  should  not  be  moved.  Therefore  did  my  heart 
rejoice  and  my  tongue  was  glad.  Moreover  also,  my  flesh  shall 
rest  in  hope,  because  thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in  hell" — leave 
me  in  the  grave  (or  d-drji;,  the  invisible  world) — "  neither  wilt 
thou  suifer  thine  Holy  One  to  see  corruption.  Thou  hast  made 
known  to  me  the  ways  of  life  (John  xiv.  6):  thou  shalt  make 
me  full  of  joy  with  thy  countenance."  This  quotation  from 
Ps.  xvi.  8 — 11,  the  apostle  avers  was  spoken  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ — that  he,  viz.  his  human  person,  should  not  be 
left  in  (hades)  the  grave — that  is,  his  body  should  not  be  left  in 
the  grave,  nor  his  soul  and  spirit  in  the  ivorld  of  spirits — and 
that  his  body  should  not  be  permitted  to  see  corruption.  ^  This 
sense,  however,  does  not  clearly  appear  from  the  passage  itself, 
nor  have  we  reason  to  suppose  it  was  so  understood  by  the 
learned  of  the  nation.  To  deduce  it  from  the  passage,  the 
apostle  collates  with  it  Ps.  cxxxii.  11,  and  Ps.  ex.  1,  and  pro- 
ceeds to  argue  thus  from  the  facts  of  the  case.  'David  has 
long  been  dead  and  buried.  His  sepulchre  remains  among 
us  until  this  day.  His  body  has  seen  corruption.  Therefore, 
although  these  words  of  David  were  apparently  spoken  of 
himself,  that  is  not  their  meaning :  for  in  that  sense  they  are 
not  true.  Yet  David  was  a  prophet,  and  he  spoke  these  words 
by  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  we  must  therefore 
understand  them  as  spoken  of  another.' 

But  of  whom  ?  To  settle  this  question  the  apostle  turns  his 
hearers  to  Ps.  cxxxii.  11,  and  then  proceeds:  David  remembered 
God's  promise  to  him — confirmed  by  oath — "that  of  thefruit 
of  his  loins  according  to  the  flesh,  he  would  raise  up  Christ  to 
sit  upon  his  throne."  This  promise,  then,  was  to  be  fulfilled  in 
Christ ;  and,  the  Holy  Ghost  foreseeing  that  Christ  would  be 
rejected  and  put  to  death  by  his  people,  it  included  not  merely 
the  birth  of  Christ  from  one  of  David's  descent,  but  his  resur- 
rection from  the  dead.  And  to  him  these  words  do  apply ;  for 
he  was  not  left  in  the  grave,  nor  did  his  body  see  corruption, 
but  God  raised  him  up  from  the  dead  on  the  third  day  after  he 
had  sufi"ered  by  your  hands,  and  we,  his  apostles,  are  eye-wit- 
nesses of  that  fact  which  we  now  declare  to  you.  And  not  only 
hath  God  raised  him  from  the  dead,  but  he  has  exalted  him 
according  to  another  Psalm  (ex.  1,)  in  which  David  says,  "  The 
Lord  said  unto  my  Lord,  Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand,  until  I 
make  thy  foes  thy  footstool."  This  Psalm  also  plainly  is  not 
applicable  to  David,  Matt.  xxii.  42—45:  for  David  has  not 


556  NOTES    ON    SCRIPTURE. 

ascended  into  heaven,  but  Jesus  of  Nazareth  has  ascended,  of 
which  also  we  were  eye-witnessea;  and  having  ascended  he 
received  of  God  the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which 
he  promised  before  his  ascension  to  send  upon  us,  which  promise 
he  has  this  day  fulfilled,  as  you  now  see  and  hear,  verse  36. 
Therefore,  let  all  the  house  of  Israel  know  for  a  certainty,  that 
God  hath  made  that  same  Jesus,  whom  ye  lately  rejected  and 
crucified  as  a  malefactor,  both  Lord  and  Christ. 

The  grounds  of  the  argument  then  are  these.  The  visible 
outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  miraculous  powers  he 
had  conferred,  were  predicted  by  the  prophet  Joel,  and  they 
were  a  proof  of  the  ascension  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  whom  they 
had  wickedly  put  to  death.  This  prophet,  therefore,  had  respect 
in  this  prophecy  to  the  ascension  of  Christ.  His  ascension 
implied  his  resurrection  from  the  dead,  and  this  fact  had  been 
foretold  by  David ;  and  these  facts  they,  the  apostles,  who  had 
received  these  wonderful  powers,  were  eye-witnesses  of:  so  that 
both  these  prophecies  were  confirmed— ^the  first  by  what  they 
saw  and  heard,  and  the  second  by  the  positive  testimony  of  the 
apostles,  whose  testimony  was  also  confirmed  by  the  miraculous 
power  of  being  able  to  speak  'perfectly  many  different  languages 
they  had  never  learned,  as  though  they  were  their  vernacular 
tongue.  The  greatness  of  this  miracle  will  be  best  appreciated 
by  those  who  have  attempted  to  acquire  the  ability  to  speak  a 
single  foreign  language  with  propriety  and  fluency — a  task  which 
is  seldom  accomplished  after  attaining  the  age  of  maturity,  even 
by  the  most  gifted. 

The  argument,  as  a  whole,  is  perfectly  conclusive ;  yet  it 
must  be  confessed,  that  without  the  explanation  of  the  apostles, 
and  their  testimony  as  witnesses  to  the  facts  he  alleged,  we 
should  not  be  able  to  find  in  these  passages  a  prediction  of  the 
resurrection  and  exaltation  of  Christ.  The  same  may  be  said 
of  Ps.  ii.  7,  cited  by  the  apostle  Paul  for  the  same  purpose.  Acts 
xiii.  33;  see  Heb.  i.  5:  "Thou  art  my  son,  this  day  have  I 
begotten  thee,"  And  these,  it  may  be  presumed,  are  among 
the  clearest  prophecies  relating  to  the  subject.  The  obscurity 
was  designed,  lest  too  luminous  a  disclosure  of  the  foreseen 
rejection  of  Christ  by  the  nation,  and  of  God's  intended  pro- 
ceedings thereon,  should  interfere  with  the  freedom  of  the  Jews 
to  receive  their  Messiah  and  enjoy  the  blessings  of  the  kingdom 
he  preached.  Suppose  for  a  moment  that  the  rejection,  cruci- 
fixion, resurrection,  ascension,  and  the  second  coming  of  Christ, 
or  either  of  them,  had  been  clearly  foretold  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment— the  reader  will  perceive  the  influence  it  would  have  had 
on  that  people  during  our  Lord's  personal  ministry.  Had  it 
been  a  part  of  the  national  faith,  that,  by  the  determinate 


CHANGE   WROUGHT   IN   THE    MIND    OP    PETER.  557 

counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  God,  they  were  to  reject  their 
Messiah,  and  wickedly  put  him  to  death,  the  people  might  have 
said,  "  It  is  in  vain  to  preach  the  kingdom  to  us,  or  expect  U3 
to  receive  either  the  kingdom  or  the  king."  Or  if  not  this,  the 
unbelief  of  the  nation  would  in  some  way  have  perverted  the 
knowledge  of  these  events  into  a  stone  of  stumbling  and  an 
additional  occasion  of  ruin.  But  the  purpose  of  God  required 
that  the  nation  should  be  free  in  their  action — free  to  receive, 
and  free  to  reject:  because  they  were  to  be  held  responsible 
for  their  conduct.  This  is  a  sufficient  reason  why  the  greatest 
of  their  national  sins  and  the  consequences  of  it  should  not  be 
explicitly  foretold. 

Before  we  leave  this  passage  we  should  remark  the  great 
change  wrought  in  the  mind  of  this  apostle  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
A  large  volume  of  Divine  knowledge  in  the  mystery  of  redemp- 
tion had  been,  as  it  were  in  a  moment,  poured  into  his  soul. 
He  had  become  a  new  man  in  knowledge.  To  him  it  was 
another  sensible  fulfilment  of  his  Saviour's  promise.  John 
xiv.  26;  xvi.  13;  see  1  John  ii.  24 — 27.  During  the  personal 
ministry  of  the  Lord  he  was  scandalized  at  the  prediction  of 
his  approaching  sufferings.  Matt.  xvi.  22.  He  could  not 
imagine  what  the  rising  of  the  Son  of  Man  from  the  dead 
could  mean.  Mark  ix.  10.  On  the  morning  of  the  resurrection 
he  understood  not  the  Scripture  that  he  must  rise  from  the 
dead,  as  he  now  explained  it ;  see  notes  on  John  xx.  9 ;  nor  had 
he  any  conception  of  the  Lord's  ascension.  John  xiii.  36.  But 
now,  these  deep  and  far-reaching  mysteries — obscurely  taught 
in  the  Old  Testament,  as  we  have  seen — were  opened.  He 
understood  the  Divine  purposes  that  Christ  must  suffer.  Acts 
ii.  23;  Luke  xxiv.  26;  Acts  xxvi.  23;  and  why  it  was  impos- 
sible he  should  be  holden  of  death.  He  understood  the  pro- 
phecies in  a  sense  he  never  perceived  before,  and  the  purposes 
of  the  Lord's  ascension,  and  the  designed  use  of  the  gifts  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  So  great  a  change,  suddenly  wrought  in  the  mind 
of  an  unlearned  and  ignorant  man,  was  a  demonstrative  proof 
of  the  presence  of  the  Divine  power,  and  of  the  truth  of  his 
testimony  to  the  facts  he  preached.  The,  character  of  this 
apostle  as  delineated  in  the  Gospels,  and  in  the  first  fifteen 
chapters  of  the  Acts,  presents  in  many  respects  very  striking 
contrasts. 

Acts  ii.  37 — 42.  The  effect  of  this  first  sermon  of  tlio  new 
dispensation  is  described  in  these  verses.  By  some  it  is  sup- 
posed that  the  honour  conferred  upon  Peter  by  choosing  him 
to  preach  it,  and  afterwards  first  to  make  known  the  gospel  to 
Gentiles,  Acts  xv.  7,  was  the  fulfilment  of  the  Saviour's  pro- 
mise to  give  him  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  the  heavens. 


558  NOTES    ON   SCRIPTURE. 

Matt.  xvi.  19.  It  is  not  improbable  that  this  honour  was 
included  in  that  promise,  but  the  full  import  of  it,  as  those 
in  Matt.  xix.  28;  Luke  xxii.  30,  we  apprehend  will  not  be 
exhausted  until  the  kingdom  of  God  shall  come.  Matt.  vi.  10. 

Acts  ii.  43.  "And  great  fear  came  upon  every  soul,  and 
wonders  and  signs  were  done  by  the  apostles." 

The  only  miracles  of  the  day  of  Pentecost,  so  far  as  we  know, 
were  the  visible  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  apostles, 
and  the  discourses  they  held  in  new  tongues ;  for  we  infer  from 
verses  7 — 11,  the  other  apostles,  as  well  as  Peter,  proclaimed 
the  wonderful  works  of  God,  although  their  discourses  are  not 
recorded.  The  reason  may  be  that  the  matter  of  each  was 
similar,  while  the  language  in  which  it  was  clothed  was  various. 
Peter,  although  he  may  have  spoken  in  other  tongues,  pro- 
nounced this  discourse  in  the  vernacular  of  the  country,  as  he 
addressed  especially  the  men  of  Judea  and  dwellers  of  Jerusa- 
lem, verse  14.  The  wonders  and  signs  spoken  of  in  the  verse 
we  are  now  considering,  were  probably  done  by  the  apostles 
after  the  day  of  Pentecost,  but  how  long  after  we  have  no  means 
of  determining.  Nor  are  we  informed  what  the  miracles  were, 
nor  by  which  of  the  apostles  they  were  performed.  There  can 
be  no  doubt,  however,  they  were  wrought  in  proof  of  the  resur- 
rection. Acts  iv.  33,  and  ascension  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  We 
have  seen  that  such  was  the  use  the  apostle  Peter  made  of  the 
visible  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  miraculous  powers  he 
imparted  to  the  apostles.  The  great  miracle  of  the  present 
dispensation,  or  more  accurately,  of  that  brief  interval  between 
the  Passover  and  the  Pentecost,  was  the  resurrection  and  ascen- 
sion of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  it  was  chiefly  to  establish  and  con- 
firm the  testimony  of  the  apostles  to  these  great  facts,  that 
miraculous  powers  were  conferred  upon  them.  To  the  same 
conclusion,  the  argument  founded  upon  the  miracle  recorded  in 
the  next  chapter  is  directed.  Acts  iii.  15,  16;  iv.  10;  but  to 
this  subject  we  shall  return  hereafter. 

The  effect  of  these  wonders  and  signs  upon  the  people  at 
large,  whatever  they  may  have  been,  was  impressive  and  con- 
ciliatory, while  thp  chief  priests  and  rulers  regarded  them  with 
indignation,  Acts  v.  17,  and  as  intended  to  bring  upon  them 
guilt  in  shedding  the  blood  of  Jesus.  Acts  v.  28.  They  seemed 
the  revival  of  those  wonderful  powers  which  that  crucified  man 
had  lately  exercised  in  the  face  of  the  whole  people.  How 
futile  the  falsehood  they  invented  and  put  ofi"  upon  the  people 
by  the  connivance  of  the  guard  they  set  at  the  sepulchre !  See 
notes  on  Matt,  xxviii.  11 — 15.  The  apostle  does  not  even 
allude  to  it  as  worthy  of  notice.     Thus,  the  elements  of  strife 


THE   CHURCH.  559 

and  persecution  were  prepared,  whicli  very  soon  subjected  the 
apostles  to  new  trials. 

Acts  ii.  47.    "  And  the  Lord  added  to  the  Church  daily  such 
as  should  be  saved." 

The  word  [ixxXr^aca)  church  occurs  in  the  Gospels  only  twice, 
and  both  times  in  a  private  conversation  which  our  Lord  held 
with  his  disciples  near  Csesarea  Philippi.  Matt.  xvi.  18;  xviii.  17. 
The  word  occurs  many  times  in  the  Greek  version  of  the  LXX, 
see  1  Sam.  xix.  20;  Deut.  xviii.  16;  xxiii.  1,  2,  3—8;  xxxi.  30; 
see  Trommii  Concord.,  and  usually  signifies  assembly  or  con- 
gregation. In  the  same  general  sense,  it  occurs  in  Acts  xix.  39. 
Our  Lord,  however,  adopted  this  word  in  a  sense  peculiar  to  his 
own  purposes,  in  contradistinction  to  the  popular  sense  and  usage 
of  the  Jewish  people.  The  Hebrew  commonwealth  itself  was 
(an  IxxXr^aca)  a  church  in  contradistinction  to  other  nations. 
But  it  was  an  ecclesia  or  church  which  the  Saviour  foresaw 
would  reject  him,  and  which  therefore  he  would  reject  for  ano- 
ther to  be  formed  out  of  it  and  all  other  nations,  by  the  power 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  he  was  about  to  purchase  by  his  death. 
Hence,  in  reading  the  passage  in  which  the  word  first  occurs, 
Matt.  xvi.  18,  we  should  place  some  emphasis  on  the  pronoun 
my ;  as  if  he  had  said,  "Though  this  people  know  me  not  (see 
verses  13,  14,)  and  therefore  will  reject  me,  yet  by  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  has  taught  thee,  Simon,  the  mys- 
tery of  my  person  (verse  17,)  I  will  build  my  church,  (or  I  will 
build  a  church  for  myself  in  the  place  of  this  people,)  and 
although  I  must  be  put  to  death,  (Johnxii.  32,)  and  my  people- 
members  of  my  church — shall  die;  yet  death  shall  not  prevail 
against  them.  For  I  will  rise  from  the  dead,  and  I  will  raise 
up  my  elect  also,  and  gather  them  to  myself  as  soon  as  their 
number  shall  be  completed."  See  notes  on  Matt.  xvi.  18,  and 
on  Luke  xviii.  7. 

In  this  expression,  then,  the  Lord  referred  to  the  true  Church 
— that,  namely,  which  is  the  product  of  his  own  Divine  power, 
which  he  will  gather  out  of  all  people  of  all  ages,  and  as  the 
master-builder  erect  and  glorify. 

The  Church  thus  conceived  of  is  destined  to  be  the  glory  of 
the  New  Creation.  Its  members  will  constitute,  as  the  Scrip- 
tures give  us  reason  to  believe,  the  most  exalted  rank  of  God's 
creatures.  They  will  stand  nearest  to  his  throne  ;  share  in  the 
glory  of  the  Saviour  himself;  and  be  united  together,  and  to 
him;  and  through  him,  to  the  Father,  by  bonds  which  can  never 
exist  between  God  and  any  other  order  of  creatures.  This  is 
the  Elect  Church  for  which  the  Saviour  interceded — "that  they 
all  may  be  one,  as  thou  Father  art  in  me  and  I  in  thee,  that 
they  may  be  one  in  us  ....  I  in  them,  and  thou  in  me,  that 


560 


NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 


thej  may  be  perfect  in  one."  John  xvii.  21,  23,  and  see  note. 
Ihe  meaning  of  these  words  is  incomprehensible:  eternal  a^res 
only  will  fully  unfold  it.  For  this  Church  the  Lord  has  eone^'to 
prepare  a  place.  John  xiv.  2.*  This  Church  he  will  receive  to 
himself  at  his  second  coming.  John  xiv.  3;  1  Thess.  iv.  14  17 
It  is  only  for  the  completion  of  this  Church,  he  delays  his  com- 
ing. See  notes  on  Luke  xviii.  7.  Every  member  of  it  will 
then  be  gifted  with  a  body  of  glory  like  his  own.  Philip,  iii  21  • 
1  John  ill.  2;  Rom.  viii.  29,  30;  1  Cor.  xv.  42,  44.  It  will  be 
their  happiness  to  be  for  ever  with  the  Lord,  wherever  he  may 
be,  and  to  behold  his  glory.  John  xvii.  24.  Every  member  of 
It  will  be  angelic  in  his  nature,  Luke  xx.  36,  yet  exalted  above 
the  angels,  Heb.  i.  4;  Rom.  viii.  29,  being  made  co-heirs  with 
Christ,  Rom.  viu.  17,  and  sharers  of  his  glory  and  his  throne. 
John  xvii.  22;  Rev.  iii.  21. 

The  inheritance  of  this  Church  is  not  the  millennium,  nor 
even  the  earth  itself,  but  all  things.  1  Cor.  iii.  21,  23 ;  Rom. 
viu.  38,  39.  It  is  a  low  view  of  the  subject  which  lim'its  the 
presence  and  employments  of  this  glorious  body  of  redeemed 
ones  to  the  earth. f     They  shall  indeed  reign  on  earth.  Rev. 

*  The  Saviour  does  not  say,  "I  go  to  prepare  a  mansion  {fxcm)  for  you,"  but 
a  place  [t'-.ttou)  intending,  perhaps,  to  intimate  thereby,  that  their  mode  of 
being  and  employments  will  be  different  from  those  orders  of  creatures  which 
God  has  localized  in  worlds  adapted  to  the  particular  constitution  he  has  given 
them.  "In  my  Father's  bouse  (oi*/=t)  dwellmg-place  (alluding  to  the  omnipo- 
tence and  omnipresence  of  God  and  the  infinitude  of  his  kingdom  see  Heb 
111.  4;  see  Camerarius  and  Theophylaci  in  loco)  are  many  mansions,  \u,v^t  i  e 
places  prepared  as  residences  or  dwelling-places  for  various  orders  of  intelligent 
creatures.)  If  it  were  not  so.  (if  this  were  the  only  world  God  had  made  for 
creatures  to  dwell  in,)  I  would  have  told  you.  I  am  now  going  away  to  pre- 
pare (tcttcv)  a  place  for  you;"  a  place  for  your  concourse  and  departure  in 
the  service  in  which  you  will  be  employed,  as  well  as  of  abiding.  Such  may 
be  one  of  the  reasons  for  changing  the  word  //ov«  for  to^toc 

t  Many  persons  who  concur  in  the  belief  that  the  second  advent  of  the 
Lord  will  be  pre-millennial,  nevertheless  entertain  different  expectations  of 
the  state  of  the  world  during  the  millennium.  Hence  the  term  millennarian 
has  come  to  denote  widely  different  and  even  discordant  opinions.  Some 
things  touching  the  condition  of  the  earth  during  the  millennium  are  clear 
while  others  are  left  in  obscurity.  For  example,  we  are  expressly  taught  that 
batan  will  be  bound  and  cast  out  of  the  earth.  Rev.  xx.  1—7.  The  earth  will 
be  delivered,  in  some  large  measure  at  least,  from  the  bondage  of  the  curse- 
lor  this  deliverance  is  expressly  connected  by  the  apostle  Paul  with  the  mani- 
festation of  the  sons  of  God,  that  is,  with  the  resurrection  and  glorification  of 
the  Elect  Church.  Rom  viii.  19-23.  Holiness  will  everywhere  prevail. 
Mai.  1.  11.  Israel  according  to  the  flesh  will  be  restored  to  the  land  of  the 
covenant,  and  permanently  established  therein  and  made  eminently  a  holy 
people.  The  theocracy  will  be  re-established  over  them.  The  race  of  man 
will  propagate  Itself  as  in  preceding  diiipensations.  Isa.  Ixv  17— '">5  But  that 
we  can  adequately  conceive  of  this  new  order  of  things,  appears  to  be  as 
impossible  as  It  IS  to  conceive  of  the  order  of  things,  and  their  adaptation  to 
each  otlier  which  God  has  established  in  some  other  world  into  which  sin  has  not 
entered.    It  will  be  a  new  earth.  2  Pet.  iii.  13.    Whatever  it  may  be,  however 


THE    ELECT    CIIURCn.  661 

V.  10 ;  Matt.  tix.  28 ;  but  they  shall  also  reign  with  Christ  for 
ever  and  ever,  and  wherever  he  reigns.  2  Tim.  ii.  12;  Rev. 
xxii.  5;  xx.  4,  6.  The  vast  realms  of  the  Father's  house — 
the  universal  creation — will  be  open  to  them,  see  notes  on 
Matt,  xxviii.  9,  10,  and  notes  on  John  xx.  17;  and  it  will 
be  their  happiness  and  their  glory  to  serve  him,  wherever  and 
in  whatever  he  commands.   Rev.  vii.  15;  xxii.  3. 

In  Matt,  xviii.  17,  however,  our  Lord  evidently  uses  the 
word  [ixxh^ma)  church  to  designate  the  visible  Church  on  earth : 
for  he  there  lays  down  a  rule  of  discipline  which  is  impractica- 
ble in  any  other  sense.  "  Moreover,  if  thy  brother  trespass 
against  thee,"  &c.,  &c.,  ^Hell  it  to  the  Church,  and  if  he  neglect 
to  hear  the  Church,  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  an  heathen  man 
and  a  publican — regard  him  as  you  do  those  persons,  whether 
Jews  or  Gentiles,  who  have  never  professed  faith  in  me,  or 
united  themselves  to  your  community." 

it  is  not  the  inheritance  or  the  hope  of  the  Elect  Church.  Their  inheritance 
is  much  more  exalted,  and  they  will  enter  upon  it  at  the  coming  of  the  Lord. 
This  consideration  invests  the  question  of  the  premillennial  advent  with 
intense  interest.  It  is  the  great  practical  point  of  the  whole  subject  with 
■which  it  is  usually  connected.  Upon  this  question  accordingly,  the  Scriptures 
are  so  clear,  that  they  leave  no  reasonable  ground  for  doubt  or  hesitation. 
They  announce  the  coming  of  the  Lord  as  an  event  constantly  to  be  watched 
for,  at  all  times;  as  the  last  article  of  the  last  chapter  of  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith  most  explicitly  declares.  With  this  event,  as  has  been 
already  said,  are  connected  the  resurrection  of  the  righteous  dead,  atid  their 
exaltation  and  glorification,  together  with  the  living  elect.  1  Thess.  iv.  14 — 17. 
Consequently  it  is  the  epoch  around  which  the  hopes  and  expectations  of  all 
the  members  of  the  mystical  body  of  Christ  gather.  It  will  be  the  epoch  of 
their  complete  and  eternal  enlarijement  from  the  bondage  brought  upon  them 
by  sin,  and  of  their  conformity  to  their  glorious  Head.  If  the  souls  of 
believers,  during  their  separate  state,  are  conscious,  and  capable  of  exercising 
their  intellectual  and  moral  faculties — a  question  upon  which  there  is  not  the 
slightest  ground  for  doubt,  Philip,  i.  21 — 24;  2  Cor.  v.  8 — it  must  be  the  great 
object  of  their  expectation  and  desire.  For  what  can  they  desire  so  much,  as 
to  be  clothed  upon  with  the  bodies  of  glory  promised  them?  However  glorious 
and  happy  they  are  now,  yet  a  greater  glory  and  a  greater  capacity  for  happi- 
ness is  in  store  for  them.  Why  the  possible  nearness  of  the  consummation  of 
hopes  so  transcendently  glorious,  should  be  repulsive  to  any  who  really  love 
the  Saviour,  and  love  his  appearing,  2  Tim.  iv.  8 — or  why  any  of  the  Lord's 
people  should  feel  relieved  or  comforted  by  the  assurance  that  their  glorious 
Head  will  certainly  delay  his  coming  a  thousand  years,  thereby  postponing 
also  the  promised  restitution  of  all  things.  Acts  iii.  21,  for  Israel  and  the 
nations  of  the  earth — are  questions  hard  to  explain.  See  Luke  xxi.  28 ;  Jolin 
xiii.  37;  2  Cor.  v.  4;  Rev.  xxii.  20;  Matt.  xxiv.  48.  This  hope  takes  nothing 
from  the  rest  of  the  world.  The  millennium  of  blessedness  still  remains  to 
men  in  the  flesh.  It  will  not  increase  the  happiness  of  the  future  generations 
of  men  who  shall  enjoy  that  state,  to  know  that  the  consummation  of  the  hnp- 
piness  of  the  saints  of  former  ages  is  still  deferred.  On  the  contrary,  it  will 
increase  it  to  be  assured  that  glorified  beings  in  their  nature,  have  been  com- 
missioned, in  the  place  of  angels,  for  active  service  among  them.  If  the  Scrip- 
tures were  obscure  or  doubtful  upon  this  question,  one  would  suppose  that 
every  true  believer  would  feel  a  strong  bias  to  resolve  them,  if  possible,  ia 
favour  of  the  earlier  consummation  of  his  hopes. 

71 


662  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

Accordingly  we  find  this  word   used  in  both  senses  in  the 
Acts  and  Epistles  of  the  apostles  and  the  book  of  Revelation. 
In  the  first  sense  it  is  employed  in  Eph.  i.  22 ;  iii.  10 ;  v.  25, 
27,  28,  32;  Col.  i.  18,  24;   Heb.  xii.  23;  see  also  1  Pet.  i.  1 
and  2.     In  the  latter   or  lower   sense,  in   Acts  v.  11;  viii.  1 
xi.  26;  xiv.  23,  27;  xv.  3,  22;  xviii.  22;  Rom.  xvi.  5;  1  Cor 
iv.  17;  xiv.  4,  5,  23;  xvi.  19;  Philip,  iii.  6;  iv.  15;  Col.  iv 
15;  1  Tim.  v.  16;  Philem.  2;  John  iii.  6,  9,  and  other  places 
When  used  in  the  plural  it  is  to  be  so  understood;  Acts  ix.  31 
XV.  41;  xvi.  5;  Rom.  xvi.  4,  16;  1  Cor.  vii.  17;  xi.  16;  xiv. 
33,  34;  xvi.  1,  19 ;  2  Cor.  viii.  1,  19,  23,  &c. 

In  this  latter  sense,  the  Church  is  a  mixed  body,  whether  we 
consider  it  as  one,  united  under  one  visible  head,  as  Romanists 
do,  or  as  many  bodies  separately  organized,  and  acknowledging 
no  headship  but  Christ.  In  either  form  it  is,  like  the  ancient 
Hebrew  Commonwealth,  a  people  called  out,  and  separated  by 
ordinances  and  outward  profession  from  the  rest  of  the  world, 
within  which  God  has  an  election  of  grace.  Rom.  xi.  5,  7. 
To  call  out,  collect,  organize,  govern,  and  teach  these  bodies  is 
the  appointed  work  of  the  Christian  ministry,  while  the  Lord 
himself  carries  on  his  own  proper  work  of  grace,  for  the  most 
part,  within  their  bounds.     See  notes  on  Mark  xvi.  15,  16. 

In  the  first  sense  the  Church  has  not  yet  appeared.  The 
lives  of  all  its  members  are  hid  with  Christ  in  God.  The 
greater  number  of  them  have  passed  the  gates  of  death,  and 
have  no  longer  a  local  habitation  or  name  on  the  earth.  The 
Head  of  this  invisible  body  is  himself  invisible,  and  it  is  only 
when  he  shall  appear,  that  they  will  appear  with  him.  In  the 
verse  under  consideration  it  is  said,  "The  Lord  added  to  the 
Church  daily  such  as  should  be  saved."  These,  no  doubt,  were 
true  converts  and  members  of  the  Church  in  both  senses  of 
the  word.  Their  conversion  was  the  Lord's  own  work.  One 
observation  more.  In  Matt.  xvi.  18,  our  Lord  uses  the  word 
Church  prospectively,  having  respect  to  the  then  future  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.*    It  is  not  at  all  probable  that  the  apostles 

*  The  phrase  Ett/  tawth  th  mrpu.,  upon  ihts  rock,  we  repeat,  does  not  refer 
immediately  to  what  Peter  had  said,  but  to  what  the  Lord  had  said  in  reply  to 
Peter.  "Flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it," — viz.  the  mystery  of  my 
person  as  God-man,  the  Christ — "to  thee,  but  my  Father,"  &c.  The  truth 
which  Peter  had  declared  was  beyond  the  reach  of  human  sagacity  to  dis- 
cover. He  could  not  have  learned  it  except  by  the  teaching  of  the  Spirit, 
and  he  was  blessed,  because  he  had  thus  been  taught  and  distinguished 
above  his  fellow-disciples,  in  having  been  Jirsl  taught  it.  Having  pro- 
nounced this  blessing  upon  Simon,  and  given  him  a  new  name,  Peter;  (taken 
from  the  Hebrew  word,  ^fi5,  see  Hesychius  and  Alberti's  Glossaries  ad  voc, 
also  Jerome  on  Hebrew  names,)  from  that  fact  the  Lord  proceeded  to  make 
the  (jeneral  remark,  "  and  upon  this  work  of  the  Spirit,  (in  revealing  to  otliers, 
as  he  has  now  revealed  to  thee,  the  mystery  of  the  Christ  as  God-man,)  as 


THE  MIRACLE  OF  HEALING.  563 

at  that  time  comprehended  his  meaning.  It  was  one  of  the 
things  they  were  to  be  taught  by  the  Paraclete — the  Comforter. 
John  xiv.  26;  xvi.  13.  With  exact  propriety,  therefore,  St. 
Luke  avoids  the  use  of  this  word  to  designate  the  body  of 
believers,  until  after  the  descetit  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  although 
an  uninspired  writer,  not  perceiving  this  mystery,  would  have 
found  an  earlier  occasion  to  use  it.    See  Acts  i.  15,  21. 

Acts  hi.  In  the  first  part  of  this  chapter  we  have  a  par- 
ticular account  of  a  miracle  of  healing  performed  on  a  man 
above  forty  years  old,  iv.  22,  who  had  been  lame  from  his  birth, 
iii.  2.  It  appears  to  have  been  performed  without  the  exercise 
of  faith  on  his  part,  or  even  any  expectation  or  hope  of  the 
benefit  he  actually  received,  verses  3 — 5.  The  apostles  Peter 
and  John  no  doubt  acted  under  the  promptings  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  with  the  design  to  attest  their  authority,  and  confirm 
their  testimony  as  witnesses  of  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord 
Jesus.  The  place  and  the  hour  were  fitly  chosen  for  this  pur- 
pose, as  the  event  showed.  The  miracle  suggests  many  inter- 
esting reflections,  but  as  our  object  is  chiefly  to  point  out  the 
use  made  of  it,  we  pass  immediately  to  the  address  of  Peter.* 

upon  a  rock,  (which  can  never  be  removed  or  shaken,)  will  I  build  my  Church, 
against  which  no  power — not  death  itself — shall  ever  prevail.  This  explana- 
tion is  according  to  the  truth :  for  no  one  not  taught  by  the  Holy  Spirit  ever 
really  discerns  (whatever  he  may  think  or  profess)  the  mystery  of  Christ. 
Unitarianism  is  a  religion  of  human  reason — not  of  Divine  teaching,  or  know- 
ledge, or  power. 

*  The  miracle  was  performed  while  Peter  was  {tiynpi)  in  the  act  of  raising 
the  lame  man  from  his  seat,  and  it  consisted  in  imparting  strength  to  his  feet 
and  ankles,  not  the  art  of  using  it,  verse  7.  Hence  we  may  account  for  the 
irregular  effects  or  actions  of  the  cripple  described  in  the  next  (8th)  verse, 
and  for  his  holding  on  to  both  Peter  and  John  as  mentioned  in  the  eleventh, 
verse.  Walking,  and  even  standing  in  an  erect  posture,  is  an  art  acquired 
by  much  practice.  Dr.  Paley  somewhere  observes,  that  a  child  learning  to 
walk  is  the  greatest  posture  master  in  the  world.  A  man  who  had  never 
attempted  to  walk  or  stand  erect,  until. he  had  acquired  the  ordinary  strength 
of  an  adult,  would  get  along  very  awkwardly,  if  at  all.  He  would  not  know 
how  to  put  forth  his  strength  in  a  graduated  measure,  just  sufficient  to  assume 
an  erect  position,  and  walk  in  an  easy  and,  as  we  say,  natural  way.  Thug 
considered,  the  descripticin  contains  strong  internal  evidence  of  its  truth. 
Notice  the  word  i^stAxo/^si'oc,  it  means  leaping  or  springing  up.  We  should 
suppose  a  man  in  these  circumstances  would  from  want  of  practice  exert  hia 
newly-received  strength  suddenly,  and  to  its  full  extent.  Again,  he  does  not 
advance  forward  in  a  direct  line,  but  (srs/j/ewaTa)  circuitously,  and  with  a  bound- 
ing motion  [aKho/xmi;)  as  he  went.  He  kept  fast  hold  of  Peter  and  John,  to 
aid  him  in  maintaining  the  posture  of  standing ;  at  least  he  would  need  to  do 
so  if  the  miracle  extended  no  further  than  to  give  him  strength.  We  caa 
easily  believe  that  the  cripple  was  very  joyous,  and  thankful  to  God  for  the 
great  blessing  conferred  on  him,  in  restoring  him  to  perfect  soundness,  verse 
16,  and  very  grateful  to  Peter  and  John,  by  whom  he  received  it;  and  we 
concede  that  such  emotions  are  naturally  expressed  by  external  actions,  such 
as  it  is  supposed  are  here  described ;  yet,  upon  the  supposition  that  the  crip- 
ple had  no  such  emotions,  the  manner  of  his  rising,  his  incipient  attempts  to 


664  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

Acts  hi.  12.  "And  Peter  seeing"  how  all  the  people  ran 
together  unto  them,  in  the  porch  called  Solomon's,  greatly 
wondering,  addressed  them  thus : 

"Ye  men  of  Israel,  why  marvel  ye  at  this,  and  why  look  ye 
so  earnestly  (intently)  on  us,  as  though  by  our  own  power  or 
holiness  we  had  made  this  man  to  walk  ?" 

By  this  we  learn  that  the  miracle  immediately  attracted  and 
fixed  the  attention  of  the  people,  (of  whom  there  was  a  large 
concourse  at  that  hour,  verse  1  and  iv,  4,)  upon  the  apostles 
themselves,  and  prepared  them  to  listen  with  respect  to  what 
the  apostles  should  say.  It  was  designed  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
that  it  should  have  this  effect.  It  was  one  of  the  means  HE 
employed  to  accomplish  his  own  work.  Hence  Peter,  speaking 
as  the  Spirit  gave  him  utterance,  disclaimed  for  himself  and 
John  the  power  or  holiness  by  which  this  wonderful  work  was 
done,  while  the  work  itself  was  an  incontestable  proof  of  a 
present  power  and  holiness  some  way  connected  with  their  per- 
sons, not  unlike  that  which  they  had  witnessed  in  the  person  of 
the  Lord  Jesus.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  the  apostle 
ascribes  to  holiness'^  (or  ebas^eca,  piety)  the  power  of  accom- 
plishing miraculous  effects. 

Holiness,  or  piety,  is  by  God's  appointment  a  power,  or  the 
medium  for  the  transmission  of  Divine  power,  as  faith  is ;  imper- 
fectly seen,  it  is  true,  in  this  life,  owing  to  the  imperfections  of 
the  most  perfect  Christian  character.  In  the  world  to  come, 
however,  we  have  reason  to  believe  its  effects  will  be  visible, 
decided,  constant,  unerring.  Why  should  it  be  thought  incredi- 
ble that  a  perfectly  holy  being  of  any  rank  or  order,  whether 
man  or  angel,  should  be  mightier  in  strength,  or  have  more 
varied  and  wonderful  powers  than  a  sinful  being  of  any  rank 
or  order,  whether  man  or  devil?  See  Luke  x.  19;  iv.  34,  35; 
Mark  i.  24 ;  Matt.  xxi.  21,  22 ;  Mark  xi.  22,  28,  24. 

Having  disclaimed  all  personal  efficiency  in  the  work,  the 
apostle  proceeds  immediately  to  point  out  the  true  source  of 
the  energy  invisibly  present,  and  in  doing  so,  he  charges  them 
with  the  greatest  of  their  sins. 

Acts  hi.  13.  "  The  God  of  Abraham  and  of  Isaac  and  of 
Jacob — the  God  of  [all]  our  fathers,  ^hath  glorified  his   Son 

walk,  and  his  laying  hold  of  the  apostles  for  support — considered  with  regard 
to  a  man  in  those  circumstances — are  described  with  the  truthfulness  of 
nature.  They  could  not  have  been  otherwise,  unless  the  miracle  imparted  with 
the  strength  to  walk  the  art  of  using  it.     See  Mark  v.  43. 

*  Instead  of  «>«/3ai  some  MSS.  have  i^ouirn.  or  iuBivux,  potestate,  robore,  viri- 
bus.  See  Mill.  Proleg.  438,  Beza  in  loco.  But  Beza  preferred  the  common 
reading,  as  he  found  no  other  in  any  of  the  MSS.  he  possessed,  and  it  gives 
an  excellent  sense,  and  in  all  probability  is  the  true  reading.  See  John  ill. 
2;  ix.  31. 


Peter's  discourse.  565 

[servant]  Jesiis,  wliom  ye  delivered  up;  and  ye  denied  [re- 
jected] him  in  the  presence  of  Pilate,  even  after  he  had 
resolved  [decided]  to  let  him  go  [release  him].  And  [in  doing 
this]  ye  denied  [rejected]  the  Holy  and  the  Just  One,  and 
desired  [preferred]  a  murderer  [Barabbas]  to  be  granted  unto 
you  [as  a  more  gratifying  fiivour].  But  [Jesus]  the  Prince 
[the  author]  of  life  ye  killed  [hoping  thus  to  destroy  him ;  but 
in  vain  for] ;  God  hath  raised  him  up  from  [among]  the  dead, 
of  which  [fact]  we  are  witnesses." 

This  language  is  very  forcible;  observe  the  varied  designa- 
tion of  God:  "The  God  of  Abraham — the  God  of  Isaac — the 
God  of  Jacob — the  God  of  all  our  fathers" — the  God  of  the 
temple,  in  which  you  now  stand,  as  worshippers.  Observe 
again,  the  titles  he  ascribes  to  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  in  whose 
name  expressly,  verse  6,  the  miracle  was  performed.  Jesus — 
God's  Son — the  Holy  One — the  Just  One — Him  he  declares, 
God  hath  glorified.  We  do  not  understand  this  word  [ido^aas) 
glorified  in  the  lower  sense  of  the  honour  reflected  by  the 
miracle  performed  in  his  name,  but  in  the  sense  of  the  exalta- 
tion and  glorification  of  his  human  person.  Acts  ii.  33,  36,  for 
that  was  a  point  to  be  proved  as  well  as  his  resurrection  from 
the  dead. 

Next,  the  charge:  It  is  direct  and  personal;  for  the  apostle 
discriminates  between  the  persons  whom  he  addressed  and  their 
rulers,  who  were  not  then  present ;  and  as  the  very  words  of  the 
apostle  were  prompted  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  we  safely  conclude, 
the  verj-  persons  who  were  at  that  moment  gathered  around 
the  apostles,  or  at  least  many  of  them,  were  the  same  who  had 
stood  before  Pilate  and  vociferously  demanded  the  crucifixion 
of  Jesus.  See  notes  on  Mark  xv.  13;  Matt,  xxvii.  22;  Luke 
xxiii.  21;  Mark  xv.  14;  Luke  xxiii.  23.  The  particulars  of 
the  charge  justify  this  conclusion,  "  Whom  ye  delivered  up  and 
denied  [or  rejected  in  answer  to  the  demand  of  Pilate  when  ye 
stood  in  his  presence,  and  that  too]  after  he  had  [not  only 
declared  his  innocence,  but  had]  resolved  to  let  him  go."  To 
such,  these  words,  how  appalling ! 

The  contrast  which  the  apostle  draws  between  their  conduct 
and  Pilate's,  aggravates  immensely  their  personal  guilt;  and 
their  choice  of  a  murderer,  in  the  exercise  of  their  adrnittecl 
•privilege,  to  have  any  one  released  whom  they  chose,  shoAvs  that 
the  guilt  of  the  people  was  scarcely  less  than  that  of  their  rulers. 
See  notes  on  Matt,  xxvii.  15,  16;  Mark  xv.  6,  7,  8;  John 
xviii.  39,  24 ;  xix.  13,  14. 

Having  thus  set  before  his  audience  their  crime,  he  proceeds 
to  declare  the  fact  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  which  he  con- 


566  NOTES  ON   SCRIPTURE. 

firmed  by  the  testimony  of  Jolm  as  well  as  liis  own,  and  proceeds 
immediately  to  ascribe  the  miracle  to  the  proper  cause. 

Acts  hi.  16.  "And  his  name  [that  is,  he,  Jesus]  through 
[by  means  of  our]  faith  in  his  name  hath  made  this  man,  whom 
ye  see  and  know,  [perfectly  sound  and]  strong." 

The  cure  could  not  be  denied,  iv.  14,  nor  the  fact  that  it 
was  performed  in  the  name  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  iii.  6.  The 
apostles  were  known  to  have  been  his  followers,  iv.  13,  and 
they  professed  to  follow  him  still.  It  seemed  a  continuance  of 
the  miraculous  powers  which  the  Lord  Jesus  was  known  to 
have  exercised.  Such  power  proved  their  authority  as  servants 
of  him  whom  they  acknowledged,  and  the  truth  of  their  testi- 
mony to  the  facts  they  proclaimed.  For  this  purpose  chiefly, 
we  suppose,  the  miracle  was  wrought. 

The  faith  spoken  of  in  this  verse,  as  already  intimated,  was 
the  faith  of  the  apostles.  There  is  nothing  in  the  account  of 
the  miracle  which  leads  us  to  believe  the  cripple  was  expecting 
to  be  healed.  On  the  contrary,  when,  in  obedience  to  the 
command  of  Peter,  he  gave  heed  to  the  apostles,  he  did  it, 
expecting  to  receive  such  alms  as  they  had  not  to  bestow, 
verses  3 — 6 ;  whether  faith  was  imparted  at  the  same  time  with 
the  healing  power,  is  a  question  upon  which  we  have  no  light; 
but  if  so,  it  was  not  a  'prerequisite  to  the  miracle. 

Upon  this  subject  it  may  be  remarked  that  our  Lord  per- 
formed many  miracles,  as  proofs  of  his  Divine  mission  and 
authority  upon  persons  incapable  of  exercising  faith — such  as 
children,  demoniacs,  and  even  the  dead,  as  well  as  on  others, 
who,  though  capable  of  faith,  did  not  seek  him  in  the  exercise 
of  it.  John  v.  7,  8;  Matt.  viii.  28,  32;  Luke  vii.  11—15. 
Peter  and  John,  in  this  instance,  followed  his  example.  The 
chief  design  of  the  miracle  was  to  prove  the  resurrection  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,  and  his  exaltation  to  glory.  It  aroused  the  atten- 
tion of  his  murderers  to  that  fact,  and  was  made  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  the  means  of  convicting  many  of  them. 

But  the  Lord  performed  miracles  by  Ids  own  power,  which  it 
is  unnecessary  to  add  the  apostles  could  not  do,  either  before  or 
after  his  resurrection.     See  Mark  xvi.  17.* 

*  When  persons  sought  the  Lord  during  his  personal  ministry,  or  his  apostles 
after  his  resurrection,  for  healing,  faith  in  him  was  indispensable.  In  this 
there  is  no  inconsistency.  Considered  as  attestations  of  authority,  or  as  proofs 
of  facts,  the  object  of  miracles  is  quite  distinct  from  the  benefits  bestowed  by 
them.  It  was  necessary  that  the  evidence  should  be  given  to  fix  upon  the 
people  the  responsibility  of  rejecting  the  facts  proclaimed;  and,  like  the  com- 
mon gifts  of  Providence,  it  was  given  especially  by  our  Lord,  in  the  greatest 
profusion,  irrespectively  of  the  faith  of  those  who  enjoyed  the  benefits  of  his 
miracles.  But  when  persons  sought  him  for  the  blessing,  if  sincere,  they  ac- 
knowledged the  authority  of  him  whom  they  approached,  and  could  receive  it 
only  through  their  faith  in  him. 


Peter's  discourse.  567 

Acts  hi.  17-.  "And  now,  brethren,  I  know  tliat  through 
ignorance  ye  did  it,  as  also  your  rulers." 

Observe  the  change  in  the  apostle's  address.  He  had  just 
before  charged  them  as  Israelites — their  national  name — with 
the  most  heinous  of  their  crimes.  Now,  he  calls  them  hretltren, 
and  makes  the  only  extenuation  of  their  guilt  which  their  case 
admitted.  They  did  it  igyioranily,  yet  in  the  indulgence  of 
sinful  passions,  and  against  evidence  which  should  have  con- 
vinced them,  see  Acts  ii.  23;  1  Cor.  ii.  8;  1  Tim.  i.  13;  but  in 
so  doing,  they  had  not  frustrated — rather  they  had  fulfilled — 
the  foretold  purposes  of  God.  On  this  ground  he  proceeds  to 
exhort  them. 

Acts  hi.  19 — 21.  "Repent  ye,  therefore,  and  be  converted, 
in  order  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out — that  times  of  re- 
freshing may  come  [oTtcoz  dv  iXdcoot  y.acf)oc,  Luke  ii.  35]  from  the 
presence  of  the  Lord,  and  that  he  may  send  [xojc  a.izoozscXr[\ 
Jesus  Christ  [again]  who  before  was  preached  [or  rather  ivJio 
before  tvas  ordained  or  appointed,  Tipoxe'^eipKT/jsuov,  see  Beza's 
Commentary^  unto  you,  whom  [nevertheless]  the  heavens  must 
receive  [detain  or  keep  from  you  as  a  people]  until  the  times  of 
[appointed  in  the  Divine  counsels  for]  the  restitution  of  all 
things,"  &c. 

These  verses  are  not  accurately  rendered  in  the  common 
English  version,  as  has  been  observed  by  many  commentators, 
(see  Lightfoot,  Doddrige,  Scott,  Adam  Clarke,*)  and  conclusively 
shown  by  Dr.  J.  A.  Alexander,  in  his  learned  commentary  on 
the  Acts.  The  translators  probably  were  influenced  by  their 
doctrinal  views  concerning  the  destiny  of  Israel  and  the  posi- 
tion they  occupy  in  the  scheme  of  the  Divine  government  of 
the  earth.  •  That  events  of  such  vast  magnitude  and  importance 
as  the  second  personal  coming  of  the  Lord,  and  the  restitution 
of  all  things,  should  be  suspended,  by  Divine  appointment,  upon 
the  repentance  and  conversion  of  Israel,  is  a  proposition  which 
many  persons  find  it  difficult  to  receive.  In  what  is  Israel 
better  than  any  other  people?  Rom.  iii.  29.  Is  not  the  middle 
wall  of  partition  broken  down?  Eph.  ii.  14.  Are  we  not 
taught  expressly  that  there  is  now  no  difference  between  the 
Jew  and  the  Greek?  Gal.  iii.  28;  Col.  iii.  11.  Such  are  the 
inquiries  of  many,  to  which,  they  suppose,  no  answer   can  be 

*  Professor  Scholefiekl,  while  he  evidently  prefers  the  authorized  translation 
of  oTaijuv,  admits  that  it  is  ah  unusual  one.  He  suggests,  that  before  it  is  dis- 
carded on  that  ground,  the  following  examples,  among  others,  sluuild  he  well 
considered:  Rom.  xv.  24,  i:  'ctv.  1  Cor.  xi.  34,  U  uv;  Philip,  ii.  23,  Josh.  ii.  14, 
Sept.,  U  civ.  He  adds,  that  Tcrtullian  translated  the  passage  in  question,  "  Ut 
tempora  vnhis  supervenianl  refrigeriV— Hints  for  the  Improvement  of  the  Author- 
ized Version. 


563  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

given,  consistent  with  the  exhortation  of  the  apostle  if  it  is  thus 
understood. 

But  we  observe  that  Peter  connects  the  national  conversion 
of  Israel  with  the  promised  times  of  refreshing,  and  the  resti- 
tution of  all  things,  that  is  with  a  new  dispensation — which  at 
that  time  was  distant,  but  not  known  to  be  so,  even  bj  the  in- 
spired apostles — until  which,  the  wall  of  partition  will  be  broken 
down,  and  no  distinction  will  be  made  between  Jew  or  Greek. 
Until  this  dispensation  of  the  Gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  therefore, 
shall  be  closed,  and  the  Lord  shall  return,  Israel  will  not  be 
restored  to  their  peculiar  privileges  under  the  Abrahamic  and 
Davidic  covenants.  Acts  xv.  14—16.     So  the  apostle  teaches. 

Why  then,  it  may  be  inquired  again,  should  the  apostle 
address  them  at  that  time  by  such  motives,  seeing  the  present 
dispensation  had  already  commenced,  and  the  times  of  their 
national  restoration  to  the  favour  of  God  were  postponed?  To 
this  inquiry  it  may  be  answered: 

While  God  spared  the  nation  and  their  temple  (about  thirty- 
seven  years)  they  could  be  approached  as  a  community  or  com- 
monwealth, by  the  apostles,  as  they  had  been  by  John  the 
Baptist  and  our  Lord.  It  was  for  this  very  purpose^  we  suggest, 
their  national  existence  was  mercifully  prolonged,  peradventure 
they  might  still  repent  and  believe  iia  Jesus.  It  was  a  perad- 
ve7iture,  however,  only  in  human  regard,  though  entirely  con- 
sonant with  the  dealings  of  God  with  that  people,  as  the  ministry 
of  John  the  Baptist  and  of  the  Lord  himself  conclusively  proves. 
Acts  XV.  18;  John  vi.  44,  45;  xii.  37 — 41.  If  we  adopt  this 
suggestion,  we  may  reasonably  account  for  the  form  of  this 
address  of  the  apostle  and  the  national  considerations  by  which 
he  urged  their  immediate  and  universal  repentance.  -It  supplies, 
also,  a  reason  for  the  Saviour's  command  to  the  apostles  to 
begin  their  preaching  at  Jerusalem,  Luke  xxiv.  47,  in  obedience 
to  which  command  this  discourse  was  delivered.  Hence  the 
delay  to  carry  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  which  is  commonly  sup- 
posed to  have  been  about  seven  years.  It  is  plain  also  from 
other  places.  Acts  xiii.  46;  Rom.  i.  16;  ii.  9,  10;  Acts  xi.  19, 
that  while  _  the  temple  stood,  the  Jews  had  not  entirely  lost 
their  priority.  During  all  this  time,  they  were  regarded  and 
treated  by  the  apostles,  as  the  children  of  the  prophets  and  of 
the  covenant, ^  iii.  25 ;  and  as  such,  nationally  entitled  to  the 
blessings  of  it,  on  the  condition  of  their  national  repentance 
and  faith,  notwithstanding  their  national  sin  of  rejecting  and 
crucifying  the  Lord  Jesus.  Consistently  with  this  view  the 
apostles  themselves  observed  Levitical  rites  and  permitted  their 
Jewish  converts  to  do  so.     Acts  xxi.  20 — 25;  xvi.  3;  xx.  16. 

These  observances  by  the  apostles  are  not  to  be  regarded  as 


Peter's  discourse.  669 

temporizing  expedients  resorted  to  by  them  to  avoid  the  eflfcct 
of  inveterate  Jewish  prejudices,  but  practices  2^^'oper  to  be 
allowed,  while  God  permitted  the  nation  to  exist  and  the 
temple  to  stand.  The*  kingdom  of  heaven,  if  we  may  so  say, 
was  still  at  hand  in  the  same  sense  as  when  John  the  Baptist 
and  our  Lord  so  preached  it.  Matt.  iii.  2;  iv.  17.  There  was 
no  impediment  in  the  way  of  its  immediate  establishment  in 
either  case  but  the  national  unbelief  and  impenitence;  and  to 
remove  these  the  Holy  Spirit's  influences  had  now  been  pur- 
chased by  the  Saviour's  death,  and  were  offered  to  them. 
Hence  the  first  offer  of  the  gospel  was  made  to  this  people 
under  the  new  dispensation. 

We  have  no  reason  to  believe  God  would  have  permitted  the 
Romans  to  destroy  the  temple  and  scatter  the  people  among  all 
nations,  had  they,  one  and  all,  obeyed  the  exhortation  of  the 
apostle  and  received  the  Lord  with  the  obedience  of  faith. 
But  what  form  of  worship  he  would  have  superinduced  upon 
that  of  the  temple,  or  established  in  its  place  in  the  event  sup- 
posed, is  to  us  a  speculative  inquiry.  We  may  suppose,  that 
it  would  have  been  the  same  as  he  will  hereafter  establish  upon 
the  restoration  and  national  conversion  of  that  people.  Waiving, 
however,  such  inquiries,  we  pass  on  to  remark : 

The  destruction  of  the  temple  and  the  dispersion  of  the 
people  was  a  new  epoch  in  their  history.  Many  parts  of  their 
ritual  thenceforth  became  impracticable.  It  was  no  longer 
possible  for  the  preachers  of  the  gospel  to  approach  them  as  a 
nation.  As  such  they  lost  their  priority  during  their  disper- 
sion, see  Rom.  ii.  9;  iii.  9,  and  as  individuals  no  difference  was 
made  or  could  be  made  between  them  and  the  Gentiles,  in  the 
bestowment  of  church  privileges.  On  this  ground,  we  infer 
that  special  efforts  for  the  conversion  of  the  Jews,  during  their 
dispersion,  though  eminently  proper,  cannot  now  be  enforced 
by  the  peculiar  motives  which  the  apostle  here  uses.  Nor  do 
we  suppose  the  organization  of  them  into  separate  churches,  or 
the  observance  of  Levitical  rites  by  Jewish  Christians,  since 
that  event,  can  be  justified  by  the  examples  or  precepts  of  the 
apostles  during  this  period;  their  conduct,  in  this  respect,  being 
founded  upon  the  Divine  forbearance  with  the  nation  in  allowing 
them  a  little  further  space  for  repentance,  and  the  gracious  pur- 
pose of  the  Saviour  to  give  them  still  the  first  offer  of  the  king- 
dom they  had  so  lately  rejected. 

Thus  interpreted,  this  exhortation*  of  the  apostle  is  in  har- 
mony with  the  doctrine  concerning  the  church,  as  contained  in 
the  Epistles  and  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament. 

Acts  III.  21.     "Whom  the  heavens  must  receive  until  the 
times  of  the  restitution  of  all  things,"  &c. 
72 


570  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

The  restitution  of  all  things,  of  necessity  includes  the 
restitution  of  all  things  contained  m  the  Abrahamic  and 
Davidic  covenants — as  well  the  things  especially  promised 
to  the  posterity  of  Jacob  as  those  in  which  the  Gentiles  have 
a  part.  With  this  event  the  Saviour  connects  the  future 
mission  of  Elias,  Matt.  xvii.  11;  but  his  office  and  work, 
whatever  they  may  be,  like  John  the  Baptist's,  will  be  con- 
fined, as  we  suppose,  to  Israel,  after  they  shall  have  been 
restored  to  their  land.  With  this  event,  we  have  seen,  are 
also  connected  the  second  coming  of  the  Lord,  the  resurrection 
and  the  glorification  of  the  Elect,  and  times  of  refreshing 
or  relief  from  the  effects  of  the  curse.  We  dwell  a  little  on 
this  topic. 

The  various  dispensations  of  God's  government  over  the 
earth  and  man  are  among  the  grandest  themes  of  the  Bible. 
They  are  stages  or  parts  of  an  infinite  scheme  which  join  on 
to  others  yet  hidden  deep  in  the  Divine  mind.  Eph.  ii.  7. 
They  were  all  appointed  and  arranged  by  God  the  Son ;  they 
are  upheld  and  unfolded  by  his  power  for  the  ever  increasing 
display  of  the  Divine  attributes.  Heb.  i.  2,  3. 

The  first  dispensation,  of  which  we  have  only  a  brief  notice, 
was  characterized  by  the  absence  of  all  physical  and  moral 
evil,  during  which  man  had  personal  intercourse  with  his 
Maker.  We  may  call  this  the  dispensation  of  Paradise,  or  the 
dispensation  of  the  kingdom  of  the  heavens.  Gen.  i.,  ii. ;  Lam. 
iii.  38;  Rom.  viii.  20.  How  long  it  continued  we  do  not 
know,  but  at  the  fall  of  man  it  was  closed,  and  the  kingdom 
of  the  heavens  was  withdrawn.  Gen  iii.  17,  18.  This  kingdom 
was  brought  nigh  again,  when  John  the  Baptist  appeared,  but 
not  established,  because  rejected  by  the  Jews  to  whom  it  was 
preached. 

There  is  a  remarkable  expression  of  Moses,  in  Deut.  xi.  21, 
which  seems  to  allude  to  the  physical  change  in  the  condition 
of  the  earth  at  that  epoch.  Gen.  iii.  18,  19.  The  lawgiver 
exhorts  the  people  to  obedience  by  the  motive,  "that  their 
days  may  be  multiplied  and  the  days  of  their  children,  in  the 
land  which  the  Lord  sware  unto  their  fathers  to  give  them;  as 
the  days  of  heaven  [literally  of  the  heavens]  upon  earth;''  as 
if  he  had  said,  days  of  blessedness  and  glory  such  as  the  world 
does  not  now  enjoy — days  of  Paradise,  such  as  the  world 
enjoyed  before  the  blessings  of  God's  kingdom  were  withdrawn. 
The  exhortation  is  not  unKke  that  of  Peter,  in  Acts  iii.  19,  for 
the  days  of  the  heavens,  understood  in  the  sense  of  the  prophet, 
would  be  days  of  refreshing  in  the  sense  of  the  apostle. 
However  this  may  be,  at  the  fall  of  man  a  new  dispensation 
came  over  the  earth;  God  withdrew  his  kingdom  and  permitted 


THE  DIFFERENT  DISPENSATIONS.  571 

the  powers  of  evil  to  prevail,  yet  set  bounds  to  tliera  as 
he  did  to  the  sea,  which  they  should  not  pass.  Gen.  iii.  17,  18; 
John  xiv.  30;  xii.  31;  xvi.  11;  Eph.  ii.  2;  Col.  ii.  15; 
Heb.  ii.  14.  The  earth  was  subjected  to  vanity  and  cor- 
ruption. Rom.  viii.  20.  In  the  bold  and  figurative  language 
of  Paul,  the  creature,  that  is,  the  whole  fabric  of  physical 
nature,  and  man  also,  was  made  to  groan  and  travail  in  pain 
together,  under  the  displeasure  of  the  Creator.  Rom.  viii.  22. 
The  change  was  vast  beyond  our  conceptions.  Whether  it 
came  over  the  world  suddenly,  as  the  blight  and  withering  of 
the  fig-tree  the  Lord  cursed,  Mark  xi.  14,  20,  21 ;  Matt.  xxi. 
19,  20,  or  gradually,  as  some  have  supposed,  it  would  be 
fruitless  to  inquire.  But,  however  wrought,  it  was  quite  a 
difi"erent  order  of  things.  We  may  call  it  the  dispensation  of 
the  fall,  or  of  the  curse,  or  of  the  kingdom  of  the  heavens  with- 
drawn. Rom.  V.  12.  This  dispensation  still  continues,  yet  not 
without  the  hope  of  restitution.  Rom.  viii.  20.  For  God  has 
purposed  to  repair  the  mighty  ruin — and  ruin  it  is,  though  it 
seem  fair  and  beautiful  to  man  who  knows  nothing  better — 
and  restore  the  former  state. 

Our  Lord,  with  allusion  to  his  first  work  of  creation,  calls 
this  his  purposed  work  of  restitution,  the  regeneration^  palin- 
genesia,  or  second  creation.  Rev.  xxi.  5.  The  apostle  Paul 
refers  to  the  same  restitution  in  Eph.  i.  10,  by  the  words 
"dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  times,"  that  is,  the  dispensation 
appointed  to  ensue  upon  the  completion  of  the  order  of  things 
now  existing;  as  does  the  apostle  Peter,  in  his  second  Epistle, 
chap.  iii.  7,  13,  and  the  passage  under  consideration.  See 
Isa.  Ixv.  17—25. 

These  are  the  great  dispensations  made  known  1;o  us,  ■  of 
which  most  commentators  have  not  taken  sufficient  notice. 
Those  which  they  have  chiefly  enlarged  upon,  are  really 
subdivisions  of  the  dispensation  introduced  by  the  fall,  and 
the  coming  in  of  the  curse.  But  these  are  subordinate 
and  remedial  in  their  nature,  and  subservient  in  their  de- 
sign, to  the  coming  of  the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth, 
the  expulsion  of  sin,  and  the  cause  of  every  physical  and 
moral  evil.  In  their  progress,  they  display  to  all  creatures 
in  all  worlds  the  attributes  and  the  glory  of  God,  in  a 
manner  which  otherwise,  so  far  as  we  can  know,  would 
have  been  impossible,  consistent  with  the  Divine  wisdom 
and  goodness.  The  manifestation  of  the  essential  attributes 
of  the  Godhead  thus  made,  considered  relatively  to  the 
eternal  well-being  of  the  universe,  is  a  good  immeasurably 
surpassing  the  evils  resulting  from  the  temporary  and  com- 


572  NOTES  ON  scripttjr:e. 

paratively  brief  disorder  permitted  in  this  world.  But  to 
resume : 

The  first  of  these  subordinate  dispensations  is  commonly 
called  the  Patriarchal.  It  began  with  the  birth  of  the  first 
man,  and  continued  universal,  until  the  whole  race,  excepting  a 
few,  was  swept  from  the  face  of  the  earth.  This  period  in  the 
history  of  man  is  called  by  St.  Peter  "the  world  that  then  was," 
2  Epist.  iii.  6,  intimating  that  it  was  essentially  a  difi"erent  con- 
dition of  things  from  that  which  now  exists.  The  patriarchal 
economy  was  re-established  with  Noah ;  and  with  respect  to  the 
larger  part  of  his  descendants,  has  ever  since  remained  un- 
changed. See  Sir  G.  H.  Rose's  Essays — Article,  China.  Its 
results  are  visible  in  the  abominations  of  idolatry.  In  respect 
to  the  posterity  of  Jacob,  this  economy  ended  at  their  exodus 
from  Egypt,  under  the  leadership  of  Moses,  and  the  giving  of 
the  law  at  Mount  Sinai  fifty  days  afterwards.  That  people 
were  then  brought  into  new  covenant  relations  with  God,  and 
thenceforward  were  regarded  as  a  peculiar  and  elect  people. 
Exod.  xix.  5,  6 ;  Numb,  xxiii.  9.  The  economy  thus  estab- 
lished over  this  small  portion  of  the  human  family  terminated 
with  the  mysterious  rending  of  the  veil  of  the  temple;  to  be 
succeeded  by  the  dispensation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This,  like 
the  patriarchal  dispensation,  is  universal  in  its  scope,  but  not  so 
in  its  effects.  The  especial  design  of  it  is  to  gather  an  elect 
people  out  of  all  nations.  Acts  xv.  14,  not  the  universal  salva- 
tion of  all  men,  in  any  age  of  it.  Universal  holiness  belongs 
only  to  the  times  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  Matt.  vi.  10,  when 
the  tempter  will  be  cast  out.  Rev.  xx.  3,  10;  John  xii.  31, 
and  all  things  restored.  Then,  as  we  have  reason  to  believe, 
the  Holjr  Spirit  will  act  with  powers  unknown  since  the 
fall.  As  at  the  beginning.  Gen.  i.  2,  his  energies  will  be  felt 
again  by  physical  nature,  and  the  sphere  of  his  operations  on 
the  moral  nature  of  man  will  be  universal. 

When  we  consider  the  vastness  of  this  scheme  of  dispensa- 
tions; (or  even  of  the  parts  in  which  almost  the  whole  history 
of  man,  and  of  God's  dealings  with  him  hitherto,  are  included,) 
and  reflect  that  the  whole  rests  and  turns  upon  the  God-man, 
Christ  Jesus,  Isa.  ix.  6,  we  are  apt  to  forget  the  humanity-side 
of  his  character.  That  a  Being  so  great,  so  glorious,  should 
become  incarnate,  in  order  to  die  in  the  nature  assumed,  is  a 
mystery,  the  scope,  design,  and  the  effect  of  which  the  Spirit 
of  God  alone  can  comprehend.  1  Cor.  ii.  8 — 11. 

The  particular  place  which'  we  occupy  in  the  scheme,  is 
several  times  called  in  Scripture  the  last  days,  Heb.  i.  2; 
2  Tim.  iii.  1;  2  Pet.  iii.  3;  James  v.  3;  see  1  Pet.  i.  5, 
20 ;  Jude  xviii.,  by  which  expression  we  understand  the  ulti- 


THE   RESTITUTION   OF   ALL   THINGS.  673 

mate  subdivision  or  portion  of  the  second  of  the  great  dis- 
pensations before  mentioned — viz.  the  Dispensation  of  the 
Fall.  We  infer  from  it  that  no  other  economy  will  intervene 
before  the  restitution  of  all  things  spoken  of  in  this  verse.* 

The  words,  "restitution  of  all  things,"  it  is  unnecessary  to 
observe,  imply  a  former  condition  of  things,  which  does  not  at 
present  exist.   See  Matt.  xii.  13,  Gr.,  also  Mark  iii.  5.    Taking 
the  words  in  the  largest  sense,  as  we  should,  they  carry  us 
back  to  the  perfect  work  of  the  Creator  at  the  beginning,  which 
he  pronounced  very  good.    Gen.  i.  31.     No  condition  inferior 
to  this  can  properly  be  called  a  restitution,  nor  be  well  pleasing 
to  God,  all  whose  works  and  ways  are  perfect.     The  times  of 
restitution,  we  have  seen,  depend  on  the  personal  coming  of 
Christ,  which  under  no  preceding  economy  since  the  fall,  has 
been  precisely  revealed.    Gen.  iii.  15 ;  xlix.  10  ;  Isa.  vii.  14 ; 
Dan.   ix.    24;    Luke   ii.    26;    xxi.    25—28;    Mark    xiii.    32; 
1  Thess.    V.    2,    3.     Conditionally   they  were   connected  with 
the   first  coming   of   Christ,   Exod.   xix.    5,    6;    Matt,   xxiii. 
37 ;  Luke  xix.  41—44,  but  as  the  Jews  rejected  him,  the  king- 
dom was  taken  from  them,  Matt.  xxi.  43,  and  the  restitution 
deferred,  until  another  elect  people  should  be  formed  and  sub- 
stituted in  their  place.  1  Pet.  ii.  9.     It  is  still  deferred  only 
because  this  elect  body— the  Church— is  not  yet  completed. 
See  notes  on  Luke  xviii.  7. 

Do  we  inquire  in  what  the  restitution  will  consist?  or  how 
far  the  things  now  seen  will  be  altered?  or  according  to  what 
scheme  or  fashion  (6  xotr/joc)  the  world  will  be  framed^  or 
formed?  1  Cor.  vii.  31.  We  can  form  no  adequate  conception, 
either  of  the  transformation  itself,  or  of  the  power  by  which  it 
will  be  wrought.  We  can  only  say,  in  the  words  of  inspiration, 
the  whole  of  this  lower  creation  shall  be  delivered  from  the 
bondage  of  corruption,  and'  made  to  share  in  some  way  in  the 
glorious  liberty  of  the  children  of  God.  Rom.  viii.  21.  Nor 
do  we  know  whether  the  restitution  will  be  accomplished  all  at 
once  or  progressively ;  although  there  is  some  ground  to  believe 
that  the  final  dispensation  will  be  divided  into  subordinate 
economies  of  increasing  glory,  as  the  dispensation  of  the  fall 
has  been.  The  apostle  Paul  intimates,  Eph.  ii.  7,  that  God  has 
in  store  for  his  elect  people  {Iv  tok:  altoac  roic  kntpX'^n^voc^)  a 
series  or  ascending  scale  of  economies  or  stages  througli  which 
they  shall  advance  from  glory  to  glory.    2  Cor.  iii.  18.     The 

*  In  2  Pet.  iii.,  we  find  the  expression  W  io-^-xrou  tw  ifAipaiv  (roev  yx'^Tuv)  hy 
which  the  apostle  intends  the  etidincf,  or  the  latter  part,  of  the  undefined  period 
called  "the  last  days."  His  object  is  to  direct  the  mind  of  his  readers,  not 
to  the  last  days  generally,  but  to  the  latter  portion  of  the  last  days,  and  show 
a  sign  of  the  near  approach  of  the  new  dispensation. 


574  NOTES   ON   SCRIPTURE. 

world  itself  may  also  in  like  manner  have  progress  towards 
higher  degrees  of  blessedness  and  glory. 

It  has  been  made  a  question  whether  the  millennium  will  not 
he  the  initiatory  economy  of  the  restitution,  to  be  followed  by 
others  of  which  we  have  not  a  distinct  notice.  Others  positively 
maintain  that  the  millennium  will  precede  the  coming  of  the 
Lord,  and  of  course  the  restitution  of  all  things.  This  opinion 
is  irreconcilable  with  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  concerning  the 
uncertainty  or  possible  nearness  of  the  coming  of  the  Lord,  so 
far  as  men  can  know  or  be  assured,  and  should  therefore  be 
rejected  as  erroneous.  If,  however,  we  regard  the  millennium, 
according  to  the  first  opinion,  as  the  introductory  economy  of 
the  restitution  of  all  things,  the  next  two  verses  convey  an 
intimation  of  great  changes  in  the  Divine  government  then  to 
be  established  over  Israel. 

Acts  hi.  22,  23.  "For  Moses  truly  said  unto  the  fathers, 
A  prophet  shall  the  Lord  your  God  raise  up  unto  you  of  your 
brethren,  like  unto  me :  him  shall  ye  hear  in  all  things.  And 
it  shall  come  to  pass  that  every  soul  which  will  not  hear  that 
prophet  shall  be  destroyed  from  among  the  people."  Deut. 
xvii.  15,  18,  19. 

These  words  of  Moses  have  respect  chiefly  to  the  coming  of 
Christ  at  and  for  the  restitution  of  all  things.  In  a  qualTfied 
sense,  we  may  apply  the  23d  verse  to  the  Jews,  at  the  first 
coming  of  Christ,  when  in  consequence  of  their  sins  they  were 
destroyed  as  a  nation,  though  still  preserved  as  a  race.  Pro- 
perly, however,  they  signify  the  excision  of  individuals  from 
the  nation,  and  not  the  destruction  of  the  nation  as  such.  But 
understood  of  the  whole  body  as  a  nation  hereafter  to  be 
restored  to  their  land  under  the  new  dispensation,  they  import 
that  Israel,  at  least,  shall  be  all  righteous,  as  Isaiah  foretells, 
chaps.  Ix.  21;  liv.  13.  The  rule  of  duty  for  them,  will  be 
perfect  obedience  in  all  things.  Transgressors,  should  there 
be  such,  we  are  taught  .by  these  verses  will  be  visited  with 
immediate  and  condign  punishment,  each  for  himself.  Matt. 
V.  48;  Jer.  xxxi.  29,  30;  Isa.  Ixv.  20.  The  word  {i^oXodpeu- 
dr^asrac)  translated  destroyed,  signifies  much  more,  we  appre- 
hend, than  excommunication  from  the  Church.  It  means 
pliysical  destruction  or  extermination,  see  Vulgate,  Erasmus, 
3Iontanus,  and  such  appears  to  be  the  sense  of  the  passage  the 
apostle  quotes.  Thus  interpreted,  the  words  declare  a  rule  of 
government  which  has  never  yet  been  applied  to  that  people. 
Nothing  sinful  will  then  be  permitted  to  Israel  on  account  of 
the  hardness  of  their  hearts.  Matt.  xix.  8.  The  words  imply 
also  the  restoration  of  Theocracy  in  the  perfect  form  of  the 
kingdom  come.  Matt.  vi.  10.     Then  their  sins,  should  sinners 


THE    RESTITUTION    OF   ALL   THINGS.  575 

be  found  among  tliem,  Isa.  Ixv.  20,  will  be  committed  wit.'iout 
temptation,  Rev.  xx.  2,  9,  against  light  and  knowledge,  Jor. 
xxxi.  34;  Heb.  viii.  11,  and  in  despite  of  the  Holy  Spirit's 
influences  and  the  greatest  earthly  blessings.  Luke  xii.  48. 
The  apostles,  we  are  taught,  will  in  some  way  have  rule  over 
them,  yet,  in  what  manner  they  will  exercise  their  government, 
it  is  impossible,  from  the  light  we  now  have,  to  conjecture. 
But  the  language  of  the  Saviour,  Matt.  xix.  28 ;  Luke  xxii.  30, 
does  not  compel  us  to  believe  that  they  will  dwell  on  the  earth, 
or  at  all  times  visibly  appear  among  their  tribes,  or  sit  on 
thrones  of  earthly  splendour.  It  must  be  confessed,  however, 
that  the  whole  subject  of  the  coming  dispensation  lies  beyond 
the  sphere  of  our  conceptions.  So  great,  so  universal  will  the 
change  be,  whenever  and  by  whatever  degrees  introduced  and 
perfected,  that  the  former  earth  will  not  be  remembered  nor 
come  into  mind.  Isa.  Ixv,  17.  What  is  supernatural  now  may 
be  natural  then,  and  what  is  now  natural,  may  then,  should  it 
occur,  be  miraculous.  In  other  words,  there  is  nothing  in  man 
or  in  nature  as  they  now  are,  which  can  serve  us  as  an  adequate 
standard  of  conception.  See  notes  on  Matt.  iii.  2;  xix.  28; 
also,  notes  on  John  xviii.  36,  for  further  remarks  on  the  subject 
of  the  kingdom. 

One  observation  more :  "We  have  seen  that  the  fall  of  Israel 
retarded  the  times  of  the  restitution.  The  falling  away  of  the 
Church,  2  Thess.  ii.  3,  has  also  retarded  them.  The  restitution 
still  depends  upon  the  repentance  of  Israel,  but  Israel  is  given 
over  to  blindness  until  the  period  allotted  for  the  gathering  of  the 
elect  Church  shall  have  elapsed,  Rom.  xi.  25,  and  this  event  by 
the  Divine  purpose  is  made  to  depend  upon  the  universal  pro- 
mulgation of  the  gospel  among  all  nations.  Matt.  xxiv.  14. 
The  times  of  restitution,  therefore,  humanly  speaking,  depend 
upon  the  full  execution  of  the  Saviour's  last  command.  Matt, 
xxviii.  19,  20;  Mark  xvi.  15. 


THE   END. 


INDEX    OF    CONTENTS. 


Abraham,  36. 

Adam,  89,  210,  363. 

Advent,  1S8,  272,  323,  324,  530,  531. 

Aloes,  441. 

Angels,  200,  280,  281,  465,  468,  459,  463, 

468,  469,  639. 
Apostles,  136,  189, 191,  192,  193. 
,  their  ambitious  desires,  227, 

228,  229. 

call,  100. 

,  care  extended  over  them,  101, 

102. 

commission,  101,  191. 

. after  Christ's  as- 


cension, 633,  634. 

deficiency  in  a  clear  appre- 
hension of  Christ's  deity,  186. 

,    distinctions    between    their 

missions  before  and  after  Christ's 
resurrection,  102,  103,  104. 

condition  in  the  new  dispen- 
sation, 220. 

■ limited  views  of  the  kingdom 

of  God,  543,  544,546. 

,  ministry  committed  to  them, 

189,  191. 

,    power  conferred    on    them, 

100,  101. 

,  title  given  by  them   to  the 

Saviour  in  their  Epistles,  189. 

Arimathea,  439. 

Ascension,  480,  481,  514,  515,  536,  537, 
538,  539,  544. 

Augustus  Caesar,  384. 

Avarice,  302,  303. 

B 

Baptism  appointed  by  our  Lord  after 
his  resurrection,  66,  214. 

a  seal  of  discipleship,  634. 

introductory  to  every  new  dis- 
pensation, 541. 

in  Jordan,  why?  55, 

of  Christ,  61,  62. 

of  infants,  534. 

of  the  nation,  emblematical. 


Barabbas,  361,  362,  363,  364, 
Barnabas,  514,  616. 
Bethany,  614. 
Bible,  39,  40. 
Burial,  441,  442,  443. 

C 

Carcass,  symbol  employed  by  our  Lord, 

320. 
Centurion,  healing  of  his  servant,  82, 

83,  436. 
Children  dying  in  infancy,  their  safety, 

197,  198,  199. 

fearful  responsibility  of  those 


who  are  the  occasion  of  their  trans- 
gressions, 199. 

Christ,  charges  against  him,  335,  336, 
337. 

description  of  him,  340,  343. 

forsaken  of  the  Father,  426,  427, 

,  last  presentation  of  him  to  the 

Jews  as  their  King,  390,  391. 

Master  and  Monarch  of  all,  299, 


300 


376. 


•,  mocking  of  him,  353,  373,  374, 

'6. 

-  mystery  of  his  person,  153,  154. 

>„  „.^,^„o,.or./>oa  nftf>r  his  resurrec- 


Christ's  appearances  after  his  resurrec 
tion,  471, 472, 479,  487, 498,  502— 507 

ascension,  644,  545. 

body,  600. 

communication  to  his  disciples, 

on  his  last  journey  to  Jerusalem, 
226,  226,  227. 

cross-bearing,  397,  398. 

deposit  of  his  spirit,  429,  430. 
glorification,  648,  549,  550,  651, 


66,  57. 

of  the  Holy  Ghost,  58. 

with  fire,  68,  59,  60. 

73 


241 


662. 

kingdom,  191,  192. 
lainentation  over  Jerusalem,  240, 

prophecy  of  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  242,  243. 

last  day  of  public  ministry,  249. 
message   to   his   brethren,   475, 


476. 


mission  to  the  people  of  Israel 
as  Son  of  Man,  200. 

—  personal  ministry,  124. 

nriestlv  ollioe,  188. 

redemption  work,  190,  191, 192. 


678 


INDEX   OF   CONTENTS. 


Christ's  resurrection,  501). 

sacrificial  work  typified,  47.3. 

,  its  result,  232. 

triumphal    entry   into    Jerusa- 
lem, 235,  236,  2;i7,  238,  389,  240. 

work   of   humiliation   finished, 


428,  429 
Christian  ministry,  534. 
Church,  203,  204,  205,  206,  207,  208,  534, 

559,  560,  561,  562. 
Cleopas,  487. 
,    his    walk    to    Emmaus    with 

Jesus,  488,  489. 
-,    his  defective  views  of  the  ofiice 


and  work  of  Jesus,  493,  494. 
-,    his  recognition  of  Jesus,  496. 


Coat,  typical,  413 

Cohort,  371,  372. 

Coinage,  278. 

Complement    of   evidence    of   Christ's 

universal    government    over    the 

world,  91. 
Corban,  395. 
Covenant,  34,  36,  38,  41,  42,  43,  44,  46, 

50,  64,  189,  260,  261,  262,  282,  283. 
Crown  of  thorns,  373,  374. 
Crucifixion,  335. 

D 

David,  36,  153,  154, 157. 

,  his  conceptions  of  the  Adam  of 

the  covenant,  94,  95,  96. 

Demons,  their  knowledge,  91,  92. 

Disciples,  195,  227,  86. 

questions  and  impressions  re- 
specting the  temple,  the  Lord's 
coming,  and  end  of  the  world,  310, 
311,  312,  313,  314. 

Dispensation  of  the  fall,  or  of  the  king- 
dom of  the  heavens  withdrawn, 
570,  571. 

of  Paradise,  or  of  the  king- 
dom of  the  heavens,  570. 

of  the   fulness  of  times. 


571. 

Divine  sovereignty,  223,  224. 
Dream  of  Pilate's  wife,  359,  360. 

E 

Earth,  grace  and  goodness  of  God  beau- 
tifully illustrated  in  its  redemp- 
tion, 201,  202. 

quaking,  432. 

Earthly  relations  absorbed  in  the  per- 
fect union  of  the  Redeemer,  125, 
126. 

Eighth  day,  515. 

Elect,  in  what  their  happiness  will 
consist,  230,  231,  283. 

Election,  doctrine  of,  274. 

of  grace,  305,  306. 

Elect  Church,  321,  322,  559. 

,  its  inheritance,  560. 

Elias,  178,  180,  181. 

Elijah,  his  Ministry,  64. 


Emmaus,  487. 

End,  a  limited  and  an  enlarged  sense, 

315,  316,  317. 
Ephraim,  49. 
Epistles,  128,  129. 
Esther,  Book  of,  256. 
Eusebius,  486. 
Evangelists,  39, 116,  335. 

-,   moral    demonstration    of 


their  inspiration,  318,  319. 
Excommunication,  205. 


Faith,  effects,  80. 

,  office  of,  81. 

,  in  its  source,  81. 

,  its  full  power,  81,  144,  185,  186, 

of  sympathizing  friends,  82,  83, 


92. 


-,  247  248. 


False  Christs,  314,  315,  320. 

Fasting,  187. 

Fear,  exemption  from,  88. 

Feast  of  Pentecost,  552. 

Females,  436. 

Fig-tree  withered,  2J7. 

First  sermon  of  the  new  dispensation, 

554,  555,  666,  657. 
Forgiveness,  207. 

G 
Gabbatha,  330. 
Gideon,  45. 
Golgotha,  404. 

Gospel  of  Matthew,  for  whom  written, 
35. 
,    for    whom    pre- 
served, 36. 
— ,    effect   upon    those    who    are 
called,  273. 
-,  effect    upon    those    who    are 


chosen,  273,  274. 

narrative,  remarks  on,  477. 


Government,  form  of,  45,  46, 
Graves,  482. 
Green  tree,  403. 
Grotius,  400. 

H 

Hades,  263. 

Harmony  of  chapters,  446 — 453. 
Harvest-field,  98,  99. 
Herod,  44,  47,  49,  50,  51. 

the  Tetrarch,  133,  134,  135,  136. 

Antipas,  348,  349,  350,  351,  352, 

363. 

Herodians,  275,  276. 
High  Priest,  473. 
Holy  Spirit,  304. 

,  his  work,  525. 

,  first  outpouring,  553,  554. 

Holy  Ghost,  611,  512,  513. 
Holiness,  564. 

Horsley,  Bishop,  on  2  Samuel  vii.  19, 
pp.  95,  96. 


INDEX    OF    CONTENTS. 


579 


Hosannas,  239,  240. 
Hushing  the  tempest,  88, 


Immancel,  39,  40,  41. 

Incarnation,  40,  370,  454,  455,  456. 

Infants,  baptism  of,  534. 

Infidels,  futility  of  their  arguments,  524. 

Infirmities,  83. 

Israel,  189. 

,  restoration  to  their  land,  180, 

181. 


Jesus,  characteristic  of  his  life,  48. 

,  call  always  effective,  97. 

casting  out  demons,  89,  90,  91, 

92. 


73. 


-,  commencement  of  his  ministry, 

exposes    the    absurdity   of  the 
Pharisees,  118,  119,  120. 

fulfilling  the  law,  76,  77. 

,  genealogy,  33,  34,  35,  36. 

,  Immanuel,  39. 

,  importance  of  distinctions  made 

by  him  in  the  different  relations  he 
sustained,  114. 

Messiahship,  proofs  of,  33,  34. 

ministry,  73. 

to  the  Jews,  102. 

— ,  non-assumption  of  his  title 
(Christ)  during  his  personal  min- 
istry, 296,  297. 

—  observance  of  rules  of  human 
prudence,  115. 

— ,  offer  of  John  to  the  nation,  107. 

— ,  power  of  his  word,  47. 

— ,  preacher  of  the  law,  75. 

— ,  power  over  nature,  88,  89. 

— ,  power  as  Son  of  Man  and  Lord 
of  the  Sabbath  illustrated,  115. 

— ,  prerogative  as  Son  of  Man,  93. 

— ,  prerogatives  annexed  to  his  hu- 
man nature,  93,  94. 

— ,  prerogatives  of  his  divine  nature 
to  be  considered,  93,  94. 

— ,  son  of  Joseph,  38. 

— ,  title,  Son  of  Man,  84,  85,  86,  90, 
113,  114. 

— ,  title,  Messiah,  86. 
-,  worshipped,  517,  518. 


John,  51,  52,  136,  137,  138,  187. 

,  Baptist,  why  so  called,  52,  53. 

,  character,  108. 

,  Elias  not  in  person,  but  equal  to 

him,  53,  54, 

,  eminence,  50. 

,  death,  signifieancy  and  import- 
ance of  that  event,  136,  137, 138. 

,  imprisonment  prolonged,  for  what 

purpose,  72,  73. 

,  need  of  Christ's  baptism,  61. 

,  office  and  authority,  68,  69. 


John,  message  of  inquirv  to  Jesus  by 

his  disciples,  100,  107*. 
,  minister  of  the  circumcision,  66, 

148. 

,  mystery  of  his  person,  153. 

,  preacher  of  repentance,  64. 

,  why  sent  to  the  nation,  107,  108. 

Jonas,  301. 

Joseph  of  Arimathca,  438. 
Judas,  100, 101,  331. 
Judaism,  204. 
Judgments,  264,  265. 
Judged  nations,  325. 


K 


Kennicott,  Dr.,  on  2  Samuel  vii.  19,  95. 
Kings,  44,  45,  46. 
Kingdom  of  God,  261,  262,  263. 
■,  law  of,  297. 


Kingdom  of  the  heavens,  46,  210,  211, 
343. 

•,  what  it  in- 


cludes, 215,  216. 
Kingdom  of  heaven  suffereth  violence, 
&c.,  exposition,  110,  111,  112. 

•,  spirit  of  its  inhab- 


itants, 196. 


Labottrer,  99. 

Labourers  in  the  vineyard,  special  use 

of  this  parable,  223,  224. 
Last  days,  672. 
Land,  Immanuel's,  40,  41. 
Law,  Ecclesiastical  or  Canon,  207. 
Law,  predictive  as  well  as  preceptive, 

76,  77. 
Legal  dispensation,  260. 
Legislative  sanction,  298,  299. 
Leper,  healing  of,  80. 

,  typical  import,  81. 

,  Erasmus's  opinion,  81. 


Levitical  rites,  294,  398,  668,  569. 
Lord's  Prayer,  j^etitions,  79. 
Luke,  258. 

M 

Machaerus,  138. 
Malefactor,  418,  419,  420. 

,  his  prayer,  420,  421. 


Man  a  microcosm,  213,  163. 

Mark,  267,  268,  335. 

Mary,  the  mother  of  our  Lord,  com- 
mended to  the  care  of  John  the 
disciple,  423,  424. 

Mary  Magdalene  at  the  Sepulchre,  468 
—472. 

-,  her  touch  prohibited. 


-,  distinction  conferred 


472,  473. 


on  her,  474. 


son,  474. 


a  representative  per- 


580 


INDEX   OF   CONTENTS. 


Matthew,  chief  object  in  the  beginning 
of  his  gospel,  39. 

,  quotations,  84. 

,  description  of  the   Saviour's 

tour,  98. 

,  citation  of  passage  from  Isa. 

xlii.  1—4,  116. 

Matthew,  258,  259,  335. 

Melchizedec,  232. 

,  his  priesthood,  233,  234, 

235. 

Messiah,  his  kingdom,  325. 

,  378,  379,  402. 

Military  guard  on  watch,  481,  482,  483, 
484,  485. 

Millennium,  574,  575. 

Miracles,  48,  69,  70,  74,  75,  80,  85,  91, 
97,  98,  100,  117,  118,  132,  133,  139, 
140,  141,  142,  143,  558,  564,  565, 148, 
149,  151,  152. 

Miraculous  darkness,  425,  426. 

evidence  insufficient  to  beget 

faith,  523,  524, 

powers.  The  actual  condi- 
tion of  the  Apostles  in  respect  to 
them,  during  our  Lord's  personal 
ministry,  182,  183,  184. 

Modern  Jews,  378. 

Money  changers,  243,  244. 

Mount  of  Olives,  544,  545. 

Mysteries  of  Christ's  nature,  87,  88. 

,  his  person,  153. 

N 

Nation's  hope,  37. 

Nation  to  whom  the  kingdom  shall  be 

given,  262,  263. 
Nations,  distress  of,  322,  323. 
National  conversion  of  Israel — views 

of,  568,  569. 
Nicodemus,  441,  442. 


0 


Oaths,  77. 
Oflfences,  202,  203. 
Omniscience,  522. 


Palace,  339. 

Palingenesia,  213. 

Parables  divided  into  public  and  pri- 
vate instruction,  126,  127. 

belonging  to  the  category  of 

public  instruction,  127. 

belonging  to  the  category  of 

private  instruction,  131. 

of  the  two  sons,  252,  253. 

of  the  vineyard,  255. 

,  its  great  lesson,  259,  260,  261. 

of  the  Marriage,  266—274. 

,  interpretation  of  it  furnishes 

a  motive  for  Missions,  271,  272. 
of  the  ten  virgins,  332. 


Peace — "Let  your  peace,"  Ac,  102. 

Pentecostal  gifts,  548. 

Persecutors,  360,  361. 

Personal  reign,  218,  219. 

Peter,  173,  462,  467,  497,  528,  529,  530. 

,  change  wrought  in  his  mind  by 

the  Holy  Spirit,  657. 
,  his   confession   of  Christ,   156, 

157,  165. 
,  supremacy  over  the  other  Apos- 
tles— argument  against,  158. 

,  first  sermon,  554,  655,  556. 

,  its  efiect  upon  the  people,  557, 

558. 
Pharisees,  115,  293,  294,  295,  300,  302, 

303,  304,  305. 
Pilate,  331,  380,  381,  382,  383,  393,  439, 

440,  485,  486. 

,  his  character,  339. 

,  his  sin,  340,  384,  385,  386. 

,  hisopinionof  the  charge  against 

Jesus,  341. 
,   his  ignorance  of   the  nature, 

glory,   and    extent  of  our    Lord's 

kingdom,  342. 
-,  his  astonishment  at  the  silence 


of  Jesus,  348,  349. 

— ,  his  probable  motive  in  sending 
Jesus  to  Herod,  349,  350. 

— ,  his  resumption  of  the  trial  of 
Jesus,  354. 

— ,  his  injustice,  355,  356,  358. 

— ,  his  consultation  with  the  peo- 
ple, 364. 

— ,  his  imprudence,  365. 

— ,  his  observance  of  the  ceremony 
of  washing  of  hands,  367,  368. 

— ,  his  cruel  treatment  of  Jesus, 
369,  370. 

— ,  his  interruption  of  the  execu- 
tion of  his  own  sentence,  374,  375. 

— ,  his  presentation  of  the  Messiah 
to  the  people,  375. 
— ,  his  rejjroach  of  the  obstiikacy  of 


the  Jews,  376. 
— ,  his  perplexities,  380. 
— ;  his  inquiry  of  Christ  as  to  his 

origin,  380,  381. 
— ,  his  power,  382,  383,  384. 
-,  his  convictions,  389. 


Powers  of  the  redeemed  in  their  glori- 
fied state,  89_,  86. 

Power  of  pardoning  sins,  512,  513. 

Potter's  field,  395. 

Prajtorium,  330,  371. 

Preaching,  129. 

Priests'  disregard  of  their  own  law  of 
the  Sabbath,  444,  445. 

Prophets,  burden  of,  76. 

Prophecies,  494. 


R 


Paradise,  216. 
Patriarchal  economy,  572. 


Rachel,  49,  51. 

Rama,  49. 

Redemption,  108,  208,  209. 


INDEX   OF   CONTENTS. 


581 


Regeneration,  209,  213,  215,  219. 

Reign  of  Christ,  218. 

Restitution  of  all  things,  219—223,  570, 

673. 
Resurrection,   280,   281,  282,  453,   454, 

523. 
Revelation  of  St.  John,  328. 
Roman  laws,  332, 

Roman  custom,  409,  412,  414,  437,  438. 
Roman  computation  of  time,  414. 
Rocks  rending,  432. 

S 

Sabbath-day,  436,  444. 

Sabbath-breaking,  113, 114,  115. 

Sabbath-day's  journey,  545. 

Sadducees,  66,  279,  284,  285. 

Saints  (risen)  432,  433,  434. 

Samaritans,  37. 

Satan.  118,  119,  120,  359,  360,  370,  372, 
373,386,387,  388,  399. 

Saviour,  important  change  in  his  pub- 
lic and  private  discourses  and  mi- 
racles, 137. 

dividing  his  public  ministry 

into  two  portions,  138. 

-,  intercourse  with  his  disciples, 


142,  143. 

,  his  ministry,  150. 

-,  mystery  of  his  person,    153, 


-,  public  assumption  of  the  title 


154. 


of  Christ,  160 
— ,  method  in  the  instruction  of 


his  discii>les,  161. 
Scribes,  293,  294,  300,  302,  303,  304,  305, 

306. 
Scourc^ing,  369,  370. 
Self  luumliation,  298,  299. 
Sepulchre,  457 — 465. 
Sheaf,  typical,  515,  516. 


Simon  a  Cyrenian,  398,  399,  400, 

Sins,  207. 

against  the    Son  of    Man,    and 

against  the  Holy  Spirit,  121. 

Solomon,  36. 

Soldiers,  437,  438. 

Son  of  Man,  104, 105,  113,  114,  164,  165, 
166,  167,  168,  245,290. 

Soul,  its  value,  163,  164. 

,  its  consciousness  in  a  state  of  sepa- 
ration from  the  body,  421,  422. 

Spirit  world,  499,  500. 

Spiritual  natures,  471,  472. 

Stone,  264. 

Superscription,  409,  410,411,  412. 


TEAcnER,  131,  132. 
Tempest,  87,  309,  310. 
Testimony,  Herod's,  44. 
Thomas,  519—523. 
Theocracy,  45,  46,  308,  323. 
Transfiguration,  165 — 175. 
Tribes,  5,  45,  46,  49,  50,  221,  402. 
Tribute,  193,  194,  195,  335,  336,  337. 
Trinity,  378. 

U 

TJnfallen  worlds,  210. 

V 
Veil  of  the  temple,  431. 

W 

Whitby  on  second  coming,  530. 

Witnesses,  539. 

Women  at  the  sepulchre,  457,  458,  480, 

461,  467. 
World,316,  317,  343. 


INDEX   OF  TEXTS. 


MATTHEW. 

PAGE 

PAGE. 

Chap.  X.  12,  13.  14. 

102 

Chap.  i.  1, 

33 

" 

X.  16, 18, 

103 

" 

1.2, 

35 

It 

X.  23, 

104 

K 

i.  6, 

36 

" 

xi.  i. 

105 

a 

i.  12, 

36 

II 

xi.  2—15, 

106 

i.  16, 

38 

" 

xi.  3, 

108 

i.  23, 

39 

II 

xi.  10, 

109 

tt 

i.24. 

41 

II 

xi.  12,  13, 

110 

It 

i.  18—25, 

42 

It 

xi.  25—27, 

112 

" 

ii. 

43 

It 

xii.  8, 

113 

" 

ii.  2, 

44 

ti 

xii.  9—13, 

114 

" 

ii.  12,  13, 

47 

It 

xii.  14,  15, 

115 

<( 

ii.  18, 

49 

It 

xii.  18,  19, 

116 

II 

iii.  1,  2,    51,64,210 

•' 

xii.  20,  22—24 

,    117 

It 

iii.  3, 

53 

II 

xii.  25. 

118 

II 

iii.  6, 

64 

It 

xii.  26,  27,28, 

119 

iii.  11, 

65 

It 

xii.  29,  31,  32, 

120 

iii.  12, 

69 

II 

xii.  33, 

121 

It 

iii.  14, 

61 

II 

xii.  38, 

122 

^' 

iii.  15, 

62 

It 

xii.  43—45, 

124 

II 

iii.  17, 

63 

It 

xii.  46—50, 

125 

II 

iv.  12—17, 

72 

It 

xiii. 

126 

" 

iv.  17, 

73 

It 

xiii'.  24—30, 

129 

" 

iv.  23,  24, 

74 

" 

xiii  37—43, 

130 

" 

V.  vi.  vii. 

75 

It 

xiii.  44,  45, 

131 

" 

V.  17, 18, 

76 

It 

xiii.  47—61,  52 

,  131 

" 

V.  34, 

77 

II 

xiii.  58, 

132 

II 

vi.  9, 

78 

If 

xiv.  1,  2, 

133 

It 

vi.  10, 

79 

II 

xiv.  3, 

134 

viii.  2,  3, 

79 

II 

xiv.  4,  5,  6—9, 

136 

" 

viii.  5—13, 

82 

" 

xiv.  10, 

136 

" 

viii.  17, 

83 

" 

xiv.  13,  16, 

138 

viii.  20, 

84 

II 

xiv.  17,  18—21, 

139 

viii.  23—27, 

85 

It 

xiv.  22—33, 

141 

viii.  23, 

87 

II 

xiv.  28, 

143 

" 

viii.  24, 

87 

It 

xiv.  29,  30,  31, 

144 

It 

viii.  25,  26, 

88 

II 

xiv.  32,  33, 

146 

11 

viii.  27, 

89 

II 

XV.  12,  13, 

147 

" 

viii.  28—32, 

89 

" 

XV.  21,  22—28, 

148 

" 

viii.  29, 

91 

II 

XV.  30, 

149 

" 

ix.2. 

92 

II 

xvi.  4, 

150 

tt 

ix.  4, 

93 

It 

xvi.  6,  7, 

151 

" 

ix.  9, 

97 

It 

xvi.  13,  14, 

153 

ix.  18—31, 

97 

" 

xvi.  is; 

156 

ix.  35,36,37,38 

98 

It 

xvi.  16, 

166 

X.  1. 

99 

" 

xvi.  17, 

157 

X.  5,  7, 

101 

It 

xvi.  18,  19, 

168 

It 

X.  9,  10, 

101 

It 

xvi.  20. 

160 

Chap, 


PAGE. 

xvi.  21,  22,  23,    161 


xvi.  21—27, 
xvi.  26, 
xvi.  27, 
xvi.  28, 
xvii.  I, 
xvii.  2, 
xvii.  4, 
xvii.  9, 
xvii.  10,  11, 
xvii.  11, 
xvii.  12, 
xvii.  14 — 21, 
xvii.  16, 
xvii.  19,  20, 
xvii.  21, 
xvii.  22,  23, 


162 
163 
164 
165 
169 
170 
173 
174 
176 
179 
177 
181 
181 
184 
186 
188 


xvii.  24,25,26,   193 

xvii.  27, 

xviii.  1, 

xviii.  2,  3, 

xviii.  4,  5, 

xviii.  6, 

xviii.  10,11, 


194 
195 
196 
197 
199 
200 


xviii.  12, 13, 14,  201 

xviii.  15,  202 

xviii.  16,  17,  203 

xviii.  18,  206 

xviii.  21,  22,  207 

xix.  24—26,  208 

xix.  27,  28,  209 

xix.  29,  30,  222 

XX.  1—16,  223 

XX.  17, 19,  225 

XX.  20,  21,  227 

XX.  22,  23,  228 

XX.  24,  229 

XX.  25—27,  230 

XX.  28,  231 

xxi.  1 — 11,  235 

xxi.  1,  2,  236 

xxi.  2,  3,  237 

xxi.  4,  6,  238 

xxi.  8,  9,  239 

xxi.  10,11,12,13,  243 

xxi.  13,  244 

xxi.  16,  16,  245 

xxi.  17,  246 


INDEX  OF   TEXTS. 


583 


'  PAGE. 

Chap.  xxi.  18—20,  247 

xxi.  21,  247 
xxi.  23,        248,  249 

xxi.  24,  250 

xxi.  25,  26,  251 
xxi.  27,  28—31,  252 

xxi.  32,  253 

xxi.  33-41,  255 

xxi.  37,  256 

xxi.  39,  267 

xxi.  42,  258 

xxi.  43,  259 

xxi.  44,  264 

xxi.  45,  265 

xxii.  266 

xxii.  2,  268 

xxii.  3,  4,  269 

xxii.  5,  6,  270 

xxii.  8,  9,  271 
xxii.  10, 11—13,  272 

xxii.  14,  273 

xxii.  15—46,  274 

xxii.  15,  16,  276 

xxii.  18,  19,  277 

xxii.  20,  21,  278 

xxii.  23,  29,  279 

xxii.  30,  280 

xxii.  31,  32,  281 

xxii.  35—40,  285 

xxii.  41—45,  287 

xxii.  46,  290 

xxiii.  291 

xxiii.  2,  3,  292 

xxiii.  3,  4,  295 

xxiii.  5—7,  8,  296 

xxiii.  8—11,  297 

xxiii.  12,  298 

xxiii.  13—36,  300 

xxiii.  13,  14,  302 
xxiii. 15-31, 32-3,303 

xxiii.  34— 36,  304 
xxiii.  37,      306,  307 

xxiii.  38,  39,  308 

xxiv.  1,  309 

xxiv.  2,  3,  310 

xxiv.  4,  5,  314 

xxiv.  6,  315 

xxiv.  15,  317 

xxiv.  16—22,  319 

xxiv.  23—27,  319 
xxiv.  26,  27,  28,  320 

XXV.  46,  248 

xxvii.  15,  16,  356 
xxvii.  19,20,  358,360 


21, 

22, 
24, 


xxvn. 
xxvii. 
xxvii. 
xxvii.  25, 
xxvii.  27, 
xxvii.  29, 
xxvii.  29,  30, 
xxvii.  3 — 5, 
xxvii.  6,  7, 
xxvii.  8,  9,  10, 


361 
364 
367 
368 
371 
373 
374 
394 
394 
395 


Chap, 


Chap. 


PAGE. 

xxvii.  31,  397 

xxvii.  32,  398 

xxvii.  33,  34,  404 
xxvii.  37,  408,  409 
xxvii.  35,  413 

xxvii.  36,  414 

xxvii.  39—43,  416 
xxvii.  44,  418 

xxvii.  45,  425 

xxvii.  47,  427 

xxvii.  48,  49,  428 
xxvii.  50,  429 

xxvii.  51—53,  431 
xxvii.  54,  434 

xxvii.  57,  438 

xxvii.  58,  439 

xxvii.  59,  440,  441 
xxvii.  60,  61,  443 
xxvii. 62-66, 443,445 
xxviii.  1,  446-7,  456 
xxviii.  2-4,447,458 
xxviii.  5,  6,  461 

xxviii.  7,  462 

xxviii.8,447,449,462 
xxviii.  9,  10,  479 
xxviii.8-11-15,  449 
xxviii.  11,  481 

xxviii.  12—14,  482 
xxviii.  13,  482 

xxviii.  14,  486 

xxviii.  15,  485 

xxviii.l6,  451-2,531 
xxviii.  17,18,  531-2 
xxviii.  19,  532 


MARK. 

iii.  13,  14,  100 

ix.  14—27,  181 
xi.  12-14,20,21,  247 

xii.  25,  280 

xii.  26,  27,  281 

xii.  13—37,  274 

XV.  4,  348 

XV.  6,  7,  8,  356 

XV.  12,  13,  364 

XV.  14,  366 

XV.  15,  369 

XV.  16,  371 

XV.  19  374 

XV.  30,  397 

XV.  21,  398 

XV.  28,  406 

XV.  26,  408 

XV.  25,  414 
XV.  29—32,    416 

XV.  33,  425 
XV.  34,  35,  426,  427 

XV.  39,  434 

XV.  42,43,  438 

XV.  44,  45,  439 

XV.  47,  443 
xvi.  1,  2,   446,  447 


PAGE. 

"   xvi.  3,  4, 

453 

"   xvi.  5—8, 

447 

"   xvi.  9, 

448 

"   xvi.  10,  11, 

477 

Chap.  xvi.  12, 

486 

"   xvi.  14,  450- 

-1,  502 

"   xvi.  15,  16, 

533 

"   xvi.  17,  18, 

535 

Chap. 


LUKE. 

i.  17,  63 

iii.  20,  21,  70 

vi.  12,  13,  100 

ix.  29,  30,  172 

ix.  37—42,  181 

xix.  41—44,  240 

xix.  42,  241 

xix.  43,  44,  242 

XX.  20—44,  274 

XX.  34—36,  280 

XX.  37,  38,  281 

xxiii.  2,  335 

xxiii.  8,  350 
xxiii.  9,  11,  352,353 

xxiii.  13,  354 
xxiii.  14, 15,  16,  355 

xxiii.  18,  20,  361 

xxiii.  21,  364 

xxiii.  22,  23,  366 

xxiii.  24,  25,  369 

xxiii.  26,  398 

xxiii.  27,  28,  400 

xxiii.  29,  401 

xxiii.  30,  31,  402 

xxiii.  32,  403 
xxiii.  33,  405,  406 
xxiii.  34,      413,  407 

xxiii.  38,  408 

xxiii.  35,  414 

xxiii.  36,  37,  415 

xxiii.  39,  418 

xxiii.  40,  41,  413 

xxiii.  42,  43,  420 

xxiii.  44,  425 

xxiii.  46,  429 

xxiii.  45,  431 

xxiii.  47,  434 

xxiii.  48,  435 

xxiii.  51,  438 

xxiii.  55,  56,  443 
xxiv.  1,  2-9,    446-7 

xxiv.  10,11,  449 

xxiv.  12,  473 
xxiv.  13, 14, 16,  487 
xxiv.  12—34,      449 

xxiv.  19,  488 
xxiv.  1.3,  30,  31,  450 

xxiv.  20,  21,  489 

xxiv.  5,  6,  7,  465 

xxiv.  22,  23,  489 

xxiv.  24,  490 

xxiv.  25,  26,  490 


584 


INDEX  OF   TEXTS. 


PAGE. 

Chap 

xxiv.  27,      494 

xxiv.  28, 29,    494 

xxiv.  30,      495 

xxiv.  31,      496 

xxiv.  31,  32,33,  496 

xxiv.  34,      497 

xxiv.  35,  36,  37,  498 

xxiv.  38,  39,  40,  499 

xxiv.  41,      501 

xxiv.  42,43,    501 

xxiv.  44-49,  451,505 

xxiv.  45,      607 

xxiv.  46,      507 

xxiv.  47,      608 

xxiv.  48,      609 

xxiv.  49,      511 

xxiv.  50,51,451,513 

xxiv.  51—53,   616 

xxiv.  52,      617 

xxiv.  63,      618 

JOHN. 


Chap. 


i.  22,  23,  66 

i.  25,  67 

X.  41,  69 

xviii.  29,  330 
xviii.  31.  32,        334 

xviii.  34,  341 

xviii.  36,  342,  344 


xviii.  37, 
xviii.  39, 
xviii.  40, 
xix.  1, 
xix.  3,  4, 


343 
357 
361 
369 
374 


Chap.  X 


X.  5,  6, 
X.  6,  7, 
X.  8,  9, 
X.  9,  10, 
X.  11, 
X.  12, 
X.  13, 
X.  16, 
X.  17, 
X.  19, 


PAGE. 

375 
376 
380 

381,  382 

383,  384 
389 
390 

393,  396 
397 

408,  409 


X.  20— 22,  410,411 


X.  23, 
X.  23,  24, 
X.  25, 
X.  26,  27, 
X.  28, 
X.  29, 
X.  30, 


412 
413 
422 
423 
427 
428 
428,  429 


X.  31—37,  436 
X.  38,  438,439 
X.  39,  40,  440,441 


xix.  41,  42, 
XX.  1,  2, 
XX.  3,  4, 
XX.  5,  6,  7,  8, 
XX.  3—10, 
XX.  9,  10,  12, 
XX.  11, 13,  448,  469 
XX.  14,  448,  470 
XX.  15,  448,  470 
XX.  16,  471 
XX.  17,  448,  472,  475 
XX.  18,  449,  476 
XX.  19,  603 
XX.  21,  610 
XX.  22,       610 


Chap 


XX.  23, 
XX.  24, 
XX.  26, 
XX.  27, 
XX.  29, 
xxi.  1, 
xxi.  14, 
xxi.  15 
xxi.  17, 
xxi.  20, 
xxi.  23, 


PAGE. 

512 
619,  520 
451,520 

522 

522 
452,  525 

528 


1,16, 
18,  19, 
21,22, 


528 
629 
529 
630 


Chap. 


ACTS. 


.3,4, 

540 

1.  4,  5, 

642 

•  5, 

541 

1.6, 

542,  643 

•7, 

543 

I.  9,  12, 

544 

.  13,  14, 

546 

i. 

548 

•  1, 

652 

i.  2,  3,  4. 

552 

i.  14—36, 

554 

i.  37,  42, 

557 

i.  43, 

558 

i.47. 

659 

ii. 

563 

ii.  12, 

564 

ii.  1.3, 

564 

ii.  16, 

566 

ii.  17,  19- 

-21,  567 

ii.  21, 

669 

lii.  22,  23, 

574 

BS2555  .J775 
Notes  on  Scripture... 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


2087OC„   147 

J'-'3-«7  32iB0     MC 


